Skip to main content

Full text of "A treatise on the law of negotiable instruments, including bills of exchange; promissory notes; negotiable bonds and coupons; checks; bank notes; certificates of deposit; certificates of stock; bills of credit; bills of lading; guaranties; letters of credit; and circular notes"

See other formats










i.. A. CO. *-• *• 














Vol. I 







Entered, acconlinR to the Art „f engross, in the y.-ar ciKhte<n hun.lnHl and 

Mfventy-six, by 


In tlu; Office of the Lihrurian of ConRrctw, at Washington, 

CopYniaiiT, is7n, 
iJv .JOHN W. I)A\II:F.. 

C'nl'YUKJUT, 1882, 




Coi'YiU(;nT, 1903, 

CoPYRIfiHT, 1913, 

By baker, VOORHIS & (JOMPANY. 



^ TO 













A FEW words will suffice in presenting the Sixth Edition of this 

"ma respect to the treatment of the general law of Negotiable 
Instruments the work of the revision has largely taken the form of 
l~gtt citations of cases to date and of adding illustrafve notes^ 
No Hberties have been taken with the text, as, on th,s part of he 
work it has been the intention of the editor to let it stand as the 
work of the author, the late Senator Daniel. A few changes m and 
ackUtions to the text, however, have been made. A charactens 
of the work, and one which gave it distmctiveness and added to its 
value as a text book, was the clear and searching analysis of the cases 
In que'tfons upon ^hich there was a conBict in the authorities, and 
heTxpression by the author of his personal V-vs These expressions 
of the author's views, adding discussion and thought, could not 
mislead the investigator, as on all such point, he carefully stated the 

tiab e nstruments statute had been then recently adopted by some 
of the States, and there had been but few decisions construing the 
Ifu e tn^e that time it has been made Pa^ of the .statu e law m 
many more States and Territories, as well as m the District of Co um- 
Taby Act of Congress, and is now in force '" fo^y-^/-^— 
fsee the Appendix). The consideration of the effect of the statute 
tem a very substantial part of the work of this edition. An effor 
wl^made to obtain an exhaustive collection of the cases in which the 
TatuTha been construed, and, by the arrangement and method o 
"enradopted, the discussion of those -s- separate y,in^^^^^^^^^^^^ 
bv a catchline " Under the Negotiable Instrument Statute, it is behevea 
that convenient opportunity has been given for a comparative study 
of the general law and the effect thereon of the statute. ^ ^ ^ 

Raleigh, N. C, October, 1913. 



More than a quarter of a century has elapsed since this work was 
originally published m 1876, and over eleven years since the last 
edition appeared in 1891. 

Now the fifth edition is required to meet the continuous demand 
with which it is honored, and to bring its citations of cases up to date. 

The general structure of the text remains unchanged. New diver- 
sities in the forms of negotiable instruments, and new phases of ques- 
tions arismg in practice, have been appropriately dealt with in new 
paragraphs or subsections. 

Some thirty-five hundred new cases have been embodied. They 
were selected from the decisions of the highest courts of the British 
Empire, as well as from those of the highest courts of the United 
States, both Federal and State. In these tribunals the work has 
found favor, and frequent quotation, and it seeks to be a true reflex 
of the law of the subject as understood and applied throughout the 
domains of the English-speaking people. 

Commerce is the pioneer in the assimilation of peoples and laws. 
The negotiable instrument is the leader of the pioneer corps; and 
it is quite probable that it will produce the first body of homogeneous 
law that is evolved in the realms of civilization. These principles 
were recognized in the first edition of this work, and their triumph 
predicted. Since then they have been notably illustrated in "The 
New Negotiable Instruments Law," which, up to this period, has been 
adopted by nineteen States of the American Union; and is now law 
in the Territory of Arizona and the District of Columbia. In the 
Appendix of this edition this new statute will be found. 

By reason of other exacting employments, the author could not give 
to the preparation of this edition throughout the close, personal 
attention, which he bestowed upon its predecessors. He has, how- 
ever, himself, examined and annotated many of the new cases. This 
important work for the most part has been done by Mr. Douglass. 
Our labors have been assisted by E. S. Douglass, Esq., and by Messrs. 
Stanhope Henry, Levi H. David, and Joseph D. Wright, all members 
of the Washington (D. C.) bar — gentlemen whose character and 
ability give ample assurance of their fidelity. 

In the preface to the fourth edition, issued in 1891, the author 


expressed his sense of the loss suffered by the then recent death of 
Mr. Peter C. Baker, who had long been the honored head of the 
publishing-house. Since then Mr. Voorhis, in the serenity of a well- 
spent life, has also departed. The "Baker and Voorhis Company," 
which has succeeded the old firm, preserve the names of the founders 
in their title, and attest by their courtesy, promptitude, and fairness, 
that they likewise preserve their virtues. 

As commerce moves to greater conquests, the negotiable instru- 
ment will maintain itself in the forefront, as the harbinger of uniform 
law. This work was the first to treat the subject in its ample scope. 
So far it has upheld itself in the good opinion of the legal profession, 
and of enlightened laymen, and the hope is indulged that it may 
long continue to be worthy of confidence. 


November 20, 1902. 


The first edition to this work appeared in 1876, the second in 1879, 
and the third in 1882. The last edition has been for some months 
exhausted and out of print, and the fourth is now issued in response 
to continuous and imf altering demand. 

The author is gratified with the evidences of the usefulness of 
his essay afforded in the reception given it by the profession in this 
country and in foreign lands, and in the extensive and favorable 
citations of the text by the highest courts. Dissent from its doctrines 
has been but seldom expressed, and then only in those vexed questions 
which have elicited conflicting adjudications. 

Some two thousand new cases, taken from over eight hundred 
volumes of Reports (State, Federal, English, and Colonial), are 
hereui cited, and the newly added matter embraces over one hun- 
dred printed pages. But the comprehensive plan of the treatise was 
such that but little emendation of the text has been found necessary, 
and the amplifications are the result of new illustrations and diver- 
sities of established principles rather than of the evolution of new ones. 
With forty-four States now composing the Federal Union, no one 
just like another in its system of laws; with the Federal jurisprudence 


assuming a certain caste of its own, and with new organizations, 
ramifications, and phases of business arising out of our rapid and 
progressive development, no lawyer can keep abreast with the de- 
mands of his profession without attention to contemporary decisions. 
Nevertheless, the scientific basis of the law merchant, and the elastic, 
equitable spirit which pervades it, provide the solvent of difficulty for 
all complexities and novelties of circumstance; and amongst the new 
cases there are but few not referable to principles fixed by precedent, 
and heretofore expounded in this work. 

In the collection and digest of cases for this edition, I have been 
greatly assisted by the diligent and discriminating labors of my valued 
friend, Mr. Chapman W. Maupin. of the Bedford City Bar, to whom 
I render my acknowledgments. 

Since the last edition appeared Mr. Peter C. Baker, the senior 
of the firm of Messrs. Baker, Voorhis & Co., its publishers, has 
departed this life. He was an honest man who has left an excellent 
name, and more than this, a liberal-minded and accomplished 
gentleman, with an enthusiasm for his vocation beyond its mercantile 
aspects. Out of my business relations with his house grew a friend- 
ship for him which strengthened with years, and I mourn his loss in 
common with all who knew him. His worthy associates in business 
have my thanks for their uniform courtesy and fair dealing. 

J. W. D. 

Lynchburg, Va., April, 1891. 


Since the last edition of this work was issued, just three years 
ago, interest in the subject of "Negotiable Instruments" has in 
nowise abated, but steadily increased. It ranks now second to no 
title of the law. This is shown by the multitude of cases which appear 
in the reports and the legal periodicals, and by the number of books 
published on Bills and Notes, and cognate subjects. It is also shown 
by the fact that the second edition of this treatise was more speedily 
exhausted than the first, and by the numerous orders which have 
anticipated the appearance of the third. The reason is obvious. 
This is an age of rapid transit, of vast material development, and 
of ever-extending commerce. And Negotiable Instruments are the 


instruments of commerce, their forms and varieties taking shape to 
suit its usages and needs. 

As rapidly as was consistent with the engagements of an active 
practice at the bar, the author has prepared this new edition; and, 
gratefully appreciative of the favor with which its predecessors 
were received by the Bench and Bar, he hopes that it will be found 
more useful in assisting their labors and more worthy of their com- 

The plan and framework of the original text have undergone 
but slight alterations. But the result of the most recent and best 
considered adjudications have been embodied in it; some of the 
chapters (notably those on Certificates of Stock and Bills of Lading) 
have been considerably enlarged; many passages have been rewritten 
where elaboration seemed desirable; and citations of over fifteen 
hundred cases (for the most part new ones) have been added. 

The decisions of the higher courts (Federal and State) of the United 
States, and of England, have been the chief sources of quotation; 
but on important questions, and especially where the opinions seemed 
to possess more than ordinary merit, the adjudications of the Cana- 
dian, and other provincial courts, have been cited. 

To present the Law of Negotiable Instruments as it is to-day 
interpreted has been the author's design, and to accomplish it he 
has not only consulted the reports, but also the advanced publications 
of judicial opinions in legal transcripts and journals. His researches 
have been greatly facilitated by the courtesies of the excellent pub- 
lishers of the work, Messrs. Baker, Voorhis & Co., and to them he 
again renders his thanks. 

J. W. D. 

Lynchburgh, Va., July, 1882. 


The rapid sale of the first edition of this work has demonstrated 
the correctness of the opinion expressed by its author, that a treatise 
on the subject of " Negotiable Instruments " was a desideratum to the 
legal profession; and the flattering utterances with which it has been 
received by the Bench and Bar induce him to hope that he has not 
altogether failed in his effort to supply it. 


In response to continuous demands, a second edition is now put 
forth, containing one hundred and four pages of new matter, and 
citations of over a thousand cases not embraced in the first edition. 
The important adjudications of the English and American courts 
since the spring of 1876 have been carefully collated, and the text 
presents, as the author hopes, a faithful record of "The Law of Nego- 
tiable Instruments," as it is now interpreted and practiced. 

To those who have so generously encouraged and favored his 
work the author returns his thanks, and to his publishers, Messrs. 
Baker, Voorhis & Co., he begs leave to renew the assurances of his 
highest consideration. 

J. W. D. 

Lynchburg, Va., June, 1879. 


When Lord Holt, in the year seventeen hundred and three, 
indignantly denied that promissory notes payable to bearer were 
negotiable and inveighed against the "obstinacy and opinionative- 
ness of the merchants who were endeavoring to set the law of Lombard 
street above the law of Westminster Hall," he had no prophetic 
vision of the great part which negotiable instruments were to play 
in the transactions of commerce, and little dreamed that the strug- 
gling idea of Lombard street was destined to develop, expand, and di- 
versify itself, until it overspread the civilized globe. From that day 
to this, negotiable instruments have been a subject of such rapid and 
continuous growth that the sheets of the various compilations on the 
subject have scarcely dried from the printer's hand, ere they have 
successively become historic records rather than mirrors of existing 
things. It is true that certain general principles permeate the law af- 
fecting every variety of negotiable instruments, and that in Maljmes, 
Marius, Molloy, and Beawes, we may yet find the rudiments of that 
system which in our own day has received ample illustration from the 
hands of Story and Parsons; but the pioneer who stood on the borders 
of our western civilization thirty years ago, and who to-day sees the 
same landscape, then covered with primeval forest, or stretching wide 
in solitary prairies, now brilliant with gorgeous cities, and teeming 
with the industries of crowded millions, recognizes a change not 


more marked than that which has been exhibited in the rapid and 

diversified development of the subject of our treatise. And the devel- 
opment was scarcely more marked in the long period elapsing between 
the days of the first commentators to whom we have referred and the 
last, than it has been smce the latter put forth their admirable works. 
Chancellor Kent remarks, with an evident spirit of congratulation, 
that "the law of negotiable paper has at length become a science 
which can be studied with infinite advantage in the various codes, 
treatises, and judicial decisions, for in them every possible view of the 
doctrine in all its branches has been considered, its rules established, 
and its limitations accurately defined." But when Chancellor Kent 
wrote his Commentaries, such a thing as a coupon bond was unknown 
in the United States. When Story sent forth his treatises on Bills and 
Notes from Cambridge, it was yet a feeble adventurer, timidly feeling 
its way on the stock exchange. And, although when Professor Par- 
sons published his work m 1862, it had been recognized as a negotiable 
instrument, and was becoming familiar to the public eye, the law 
concerning it was yet in such an inchoate state that a few pages 
comprehended all that he saw fit to say about it. Now there is no 
more important figure in financial circles than a coupon bond. There 
is scarcely a to^\^l or county in the United States that has not become 
interested in it, and the law relatmg to it has grown mto an important 
title, which would fully justify its embodiment in a separate and mde- 
pendent work. We find, also, an increashig disposition to impart 
certaui negotiable qualities to mstruments and documentary evidences 
of title, which, by the common law, are as devoid of such qualities as 
any chattel sold behind the counter of a merchant. In some of the 
States, bonds are placed on the same footing as promissory notes. 
In some of them deeds to real estate and docketed judgments are just 
as negotiable as bills of exchange; and in all of them, so to speak, the 
spirit of negotiability is enlargmg its bounds, extending its mfluence, 
and impressing itself upon mercantile transactions. 

These reflections have led to the production of this work. It is 
the first effort to embrace in one treatise a classification of all nego- 
tiable instruments, with an exposition of the law touchmg each variety 
of them. And this has seemed to us the most convenient and philo- 
sophical mode of presentmg and expounding the law, notwithstanding 
the views expressed by that great jurist and author. Justice Story, 
who followed, as he favored, a different plan. To him it seemed 
(as he states ui the preface of his work on Bills of Exchange), that 
"great practical mconvenience " would result "from uniting and m- 


termixing the doctrines respecting bills of exchange and promissory 
notes in one and the same treatise"; and if his idea be accepted, still 
greater practical inconvenience would result from gathering under one 
roof all the members of the negotiable family. But his own learned 
productions, to our mind, rebut his theory. While sections and pages 
— and, indeed, we may almost say chapters — of his treatise on Bills 
are literally transcribed in the succeeding one on Notes. And while 
there are certain distinctions always to be observed between the two 
classes of papers, there are more identities in, than differences be- 
tween, them; and the differences can always be readily recognized and 
defined. To use Tennyson's phrase, they are "alike in difference." 
Indeed, not only may bills and notes be conveniently treated in con- 
junction with each other (as in fact they have been most success- 
fully treated by Bayley, Byles, Thomson, and Parsons), but their kin- 
dred, which are "bone of the same bone and flesh of the same flesh," 
are like the sciences, which, Lord Bacon says, "dwell sociably to- 
gether." Checks, so closely assimilated to bills of exchange that they 
are sometimes called "peculiar kinds of bills," may be fully treated 
under the same cover with bills, by simply pointing out their peculiar 
differences and uses. 

Coupon bonds, so nearly identical with promissory notes that they 
might be fitly termed "peculiar kinds of notes," may be thoroughly 
explained by exhibiting their peculiar variations from them in form, 
and in the functions which they fulfil. And every species of instru- 
ment, really or quasi negotiable, may be either thoroughly expounded 
or, at least, aptly illustrated by a delineation of its lines of departure 
from the general principles which apply to these two great species of 
the negotiable genus, bills of exchange and promissory notes. 

Such, at least, have been the considerations which inspired the 
midertaking, the fruit of which is now with difl5dence submitted to 
a practical and critical, but liberal profession. Composed in hours 
snatched from other exacting labors of the office and the bar, the 
author can not hope that it will be found free from many crudities 
of style and other more serious imperfections; but if it contain aught 
of merit, he feels sure that an enlightened profession will not fail to 
discern it, nor to apply it as equitable offset to those defects which 
only the amplest resources of leisure and learning could avoid. 

To Mr. P. C. Nicholas, Librarian of the Supreme Court of Ap- 
peals of Virginia, the author is much indebted for many courtesies 
extended and many facilities afforded him, while pursuing his in- 
vestigations, in the ample collection of books under his charge; and 


he begs leave here to acknowledge his obligation and record his 
thanks. He would be lacking in appreciation and gratitude did he 
not also here express to his publishers, Messrs. Baker, Voorhis 
& Co., of New York, his sense of the liberal and unremitting kindness 
with which they have aided and encouraged his work. They have 
been lacking in nothing that fairness could ask of them, or that an 
accommodating spirit could suggest to them; and he only trusts that 
the result may leave them no cause to regret their own generous 

J. W. D. 
Lynchburgh, Va., April, 1876. 





Nature, History, and Uses op Negotiable Instruments, . 1 

Section I. Nature, origin, and history of bills and notes, . 
II. Foreign and inland bills, .... 

III. The effect of a bill of exchange; whether or not it 

assignment, ...... 

IV. Donatio mortis causa, ..... 


Definition and Essential Requisites of Bills and Notes, . 

Section I. The paper must be opened, that is, unsealed, . 

II. Certainty as to the engagement to pay, . 

III. Certainty as to the fact of payment, 

IV. Certainty as to the amount to be paid, . 
V. Certainty as to the medium of payment, which must be 

money, ....••• 

VI. The contract must be only for the payment of money, . 

VII. DeUvery, 








Formal Requisites of Bills and Notes, 108 

Section I. Formality in respect to style and material, . . .108 

II. Formal elements and phrases of bills and notes, . . 128 

III. The several parts of a foreign bill called a set, . . . 162 


Stamps upon Negotiable Instruments, 165 





Irregxtlar, Ambiguous, and Fictitious Instruments; and Instru- 
ments Executed in Blank, ..••••• 
Section I. Irregular and ambiguous instruments, . . . • 
II. Bills and notes to which there are fictitious or nonexisting 
parties, ..■•••• 

III. Negotiable instruments executed in blank, 


Memoranda upon Bills and Notes, and Collateral Agreements, . 

Section I. Memoranda upon bills and notes, . . . . • 
II. Collateral agreements, 







Consideration op Negotiable Instruments, 

Section I. What instruments import a consideration, . . . 

II. By what laws the legaUty of consideration is determined 

— Confederate obligations, . . . . • 

III. Between what parties the consideration is open to inquiry, . 

IV. What are sufficient and legal considerations, 

V. What are illegal considerations, ..... 
VI. Partial want, failure, and illegaUty of consideration, . 
VII. Renewal bills and notes; how illegahty may be purged, 






Persons Partially or Wholly Disqualified, 
Section I. Lunatics, imbeciles, and drunkards, 

II. AUens and alien enemies, 

III. Infants, ..... 

rV. Married women, .... 

V. Persons under guardianship, and in bankruptcy, 





Fiduciaries as Parties to Bills and Notes, 




Agents as Parties to Negotiable Instruments, .361 

Section I. Competency and authority of the agent — Express authority 

and general principles of liabiUty, .... 361 
II. Implied authority of agent, ...... 373 

III. How agent should sign; and how instrument construed and 

parties' liabiUties determined, ..... 382 

IV. Liability of agent who draws on account of his principal, or 

indorses to him, ....... 393 

V. Ratification by principal of unauthorized acts, . . 398 


Banks and other Agents for Negotiation or Collection, . . 403 

Section I. Banks as collecting agents. What constitutes agency, and 

of whom they are agents, ..... 403 

II. Rights and duties of banks or other collecting agents, 411 

III. The manner of placing commercial paper in bank for collec- 

tion; the rights of the collecting bank; and the rights 

of the depositor, . . . . . . .421 

IV. How far bank liable for default of a notary, sub-agent, or 

correspondent bank, ...... 431 

V. Remedy of the holder against collecting agent, . . 436 


Partners as Parties to Negotiable I.nstruments, 

Section I. Nature and varieties of copartnership, 

II. The authority of a copartner to bind the firm, . 

III. Formal signature of the firm's name, 

IV. Accommodation, private, and prohibited transactions, 
V. The effect of a dissolution of the firm, 





Private Corporations as Parties to Negotiable Instruments, . 478 

Section I. Authority of the corporation to execute the instrument, 478 
II. Authority of the agent in law and in fact to bind the cor- 
poration, ........ 490 

III. Interpretation of the instrument, ..... 507 


Municipal Corporations as Parties to Negotiable Instruments, 420 


Drafts or Warrants op one Corporate Officer upon Another, . 538 

Section I. Drafts or warrants of private corporations, . . 538 

II. Drafts or warrants of municipal corporations, . . . 540 



The Federal and State Governments as Parties to Negotiable 

Instruments, ....•••••• S'*' 

Section I. General principles of governmental liability, and liability 

of agents, .....••• 547 
II. State securities made receivable for taxes, . . . 557 




Presentment for Acceptance, 560 

Section I. Nature of, and necessity for, presentment for acceptance, . 560 

II. Formalities of presentment for acceptance, . . . 563 

III. Time of presentment for acceptance, .... 569 


Acceptance op Bills of Exchange, 579 

Section I. The nature of acceptance, 579 

II. What bills require acceptance, and by whom and when they 

should be accepted, ...... 581 

III. Form and varieties of acceptance. Express and implied 

acceptance, .....••• 591 

IV. Verbal and written acceptance, 601 

V. Absolute, conditional, variant, and qualified acceptance, . 604 

VI. Acceptance for honor, or supra protest, .... 615 

VII. The effect of acceptance; what it admits, . . . 622 

VIII. Extingui^ment of acceptor's obligation, . . . 630 


Promises to Accept Bills op Exchange. How Affected by the 

Statute of Frauds, ........ 637 

Section I. Written and verbal promises to accept existing and non- 
existing bills, ....•••• 637 

II. How parol acceptance is affected by the Statute of Frauds, . 650 


Presentment for Payment, ......•• 655 

Section I. By whom presentment for payment must be made, . . 656 

II. To whom presentment for payment must be made, . . 670 

III. Time of presentment for payment, .... 676 



IV. Days of grace, and computation of fime, 
V. Place of presentment for payment, ..... 
VI. Mode of presentment for payment, .... 

Transfer of Bills and Notes bt Indorsement, .... 
Section I. Nature of the contract, and liabilities of indorser, 

II. By whom, and to whom, indorsement or assignment may 
be made, ........ 

III. Form and varieties of indorsement, .... 

IV. Whether or not the party is indorser, maker, or guarantor, 
V. How far parol evidence is applicable to ascertained indorse- 
ments, ......... 

VI. The time and date of transfer, ..... 


Transfer of Bills and Notes by Assignment, .... 
Section I. Liability of the assignor of the legal title, 

II. Liabihty of the maker on assignment, of the equitable title, 

The Sale and Discount of Bills and Notes, and the Amount of 
Recovery, .......... 

Section I. The validity of the original negotiation, .... 

n. The amount of recovery against the maker or acceptor, 
in. The validity of the transfer, and amount of recovery against 
transferrer, ........ 

Bona Fide Holder 

OR Purchaser of 

Nature and Rights of 

Bills and Notes, ...... 

Section I. Bona /ides, and gross negligence, 

What is meant by "valuable consideration," 
The ordinary or usual course of business. 
The phrase "before maturity," 
What is meant by "purchaser without notice," 
When purchaser or holder stands on same footing 
transferrer, ...... 

The burden of proof as to bona fide ownership, . 




as his 

Holder of Bills and Notes Transferred to Him as Collateral 
Security; and Holder of Bills and Notes Secured by Mort- 
gage, ........... 

Section I. Rights and duties of holder of negotiable instnmient as 
collateral security for a debt, ..... 

II. Holder of negotiable instruments secured by mortgage, 

















Rights op a Bona Fide Holder or Purchaser op Negotiable Instru- 
ments Originating in Fraud, Duress, or Violation op Authority, 1012 

Section I. Holder of negotiable instruments completed, but not de- 
livered, 1012 

II. Holder of negotiable instruments incomplete and imde- 

livered, 1016 

III. Holder of negotiable instruments intrusted to another with 

blanks, 1018 

IV. Holder of negotiable instruments written over blank sig- 

natures, ........ 1020 

V. Holder of negotiable instruments procured by imposition on 

infirm or illiterate persons, ..... 1022 

VI. Holder of negotiable instruments executed under mistake 

and misrepresentation, ...... 1026 

VII. Holder of negotiable instruments deUvered by third party 

in violation of instructions, ..... 1034 

VIII. Holder of negotiable instruments executed under duress, . 1040 
IX. When holder of negotiable instruments is protected by 

estoppel in pais, ....... 1043 


The Conflict op Laws. The Law op Place Applicable to Nego- 
tiable Instruments, ......... 1048 

Section I. General principles of the law of place, .... 1048 

II. Lex loci contractus, ....... 1051 

III. Lex domicilii, ........ 1060 

IV. Lex loci solutionis, ...... 1062 

V. Lexfori, 1066 

VI. Lex loci rei sitce, ........ 1073 

VII. By what law the liabiUty of the maker, acceptor, drawer, or 

indorser is determined, ...... 1075 

VIII. By what law the validity and effect of transfer, and the 

rights of the holder are determined, .... 1084 

IX. By what law the formalities in respect to presentment, pro- 
test, and notice are governed, ..... 1087 

X. Revenue laws of other countries. Law appUcable to stamps 

upon negotiable instruments, ..... 1093 

XI. Law applicable to the currency of payment, and interest and 



References are to paragraphs marked §. — Volume I contains sections 1-926; 
Volimie n, sections 926-1800. 

Abat V. Rion, 987. 

Abbe V. Eaton, 1729, 1729a. 

Abbevill Trading Co. v. Butler, Stevens 

& Co., 214. 
Abbey v. Chase, 307. 
Abbott V. Agr. Bank, 1692. 

V. Bailey, 246. 

v. Douglas, 88. 

V. Hendricks, 81a, 174, 199a. 

V. McKinley, 252, 253. 

V. North Andover, 422, 

V. Rose, 844. 

V. Striblem, 1473. 
Abeel i'. Seymour, 296. 
Abel V. Alexander, 1317, 1317a, 1319. 

V. Sutton, 370a, 371, 371a, 683. 
Ablowich V. Greenville Nat. Bank, 742. 
Abmeyer v. First Nat. Bank, 815. 
Aborn v. Bosworth, 1173, 1464, 1478. 
Abraham v. Dubois, 14. 

V. Michell, 532, 702, 720a. 
Abraham Lincoln Building & Home- 
stead'n. V. Zuelk, 157. 
Abrams v. Union Nat. Bank, 1607a. 
Absolem v. Marks, 683. 
Ackland v. Pearce, 674, 1051. 
Acme Food Co. v. Older, 203. 

V. Tousey, 1219. 
Acraman v. Cooper, 1708a. 
Adair v. England, 1373, 1378, 1417. 

t'. Lenox, 1233a. 
Adams v. Adams, 196. 

V. Addington, 10a, 62a. 

V. Ashman, 205. 

V. Bartell, 814. 

V. Blethem, 688^, 692. 

V. Boyd, 51a, 452. 

V. Cordis, 917, 1454. 

V. Darby, 452, 1076. 

V. East River Sav. Inst., 1524. 

V. Faircloth, 1373, 1384, 1411. 

V. First Nat. Bank of Winston, 326b. 

V. Flanagan, 291. 

V. Frye, 1392. 

V. Gregg, 543. 

V. Hackensack Commission, 326, 

Adams v. Hayes, 1340. 

V. Hugging, 715, 1760. 

V. Illinois Life Ins. Co., 1458a. 

V. Jones, 667, 721, 748, 1785a, 

V. King, 99. 

V. Leland, 1145. 

V. I^ng, 357, 366. 

V. Oakes, 1230. 

V. Otterback, 623, 661. 

V. Pratt, 922. 

V. Reeves, 1226. 

V. Robinson, 748a, 1644. 

V. Seaman, 62. 

V. Soule, 187. 

V. Torbert, 996. 

t;. Tucker, 1251. 

V. Wilson, 81. 

V. Wordley, 517. 

i;. Wright, 1017, 1038. 
Adams & Westlake Co. v. Robinson, 

90o, 1326. 
Adams Bank v. Anthony, 1339. 

V. Jones, 1190. 
Adams County Bank v. Hainline, 812, 

Adams Oil Co. v. Christmas & Hughes, 

Addy V. Grix, 688a. 
Aden v. Doub, 41, 156. 
Adair v. Lenox, 1233a. 
Adle V. Metroger, 1335a. 
Adler v. Sargent, 834, 834a, 8346. 
Adrian v. McCaskill, 795a, 1202a. 
Aebi V. Bank of Evansville, 1587, 1594, 

iEtna Bank v. Winchester, 1384. 
.^tna Indemnity Co. v. Altedena Min. 

& Inv. Syndicate, 1227. 
.(Etna Nat. Bank v. Fourth Nat. Bank, 
326a, 1611a, 1636. 

V. Insurance Co., 386. 

II. Water Power, 1743. 
African Society v. Varick, 399. 
Agan V. McManus, 1163. 
Agawam Nat. Bank v. Do\\Tiing, 1623. 
Agens V. Agens, 36a. 



References are to paragraphs marked § 

Agnel V. Ellis, 533, 537. 
Agnew V. Alden, 203. 

V. Bank of Gettysburg, 455. 
Agra V. Mastcrman's Bank, In re, 

Agricultural Bank v. Burr, 1708a. 

V. Commercial Bank, 343. 
Ahem j'. Goodspeed, 753a. 
Ahlstrong v. Fitzpatrick, 41. 
Aiken v. Marine Bank, 685. 
Aillet V. Woods, 205. 
Ainis V. Ayres, 1730. 
Ainslie v. WiLson, 1687. 
Ainsworth t'. Creke, 318. 
Airey v. Pearson, 1099. 
Airy v. Nelson, 997. 
Aistley v. Johnson, 354. 
Akers v. Demond, SG9, 924. 
Akin V. Jones, 334. 
Alabama Co. v. Brainard, 75, 412, 683. 
Alabama, etc., Co. v. Robinson, 1490a, 

1.505, 1506. 
Alabama Great Southern Ry. Co. v. 

Norris, 1728. 
Alabama Grocery Co. v. Fu^t Nat. 

Bank, 779?>. 
Alabama Nat. Bank v. C. C. Parker & 
Co., 164, 204, 807. 
V. Halsey, 205, 207. 
V. Rivers, 669, 1147, 1147a, 1372, 
Alabama Terminal & Improvement Co. 

V. Knox, 1191, 1199, 1201. 
Albans v. Gilliland, 831c. 
Albany Furniture Co. v. Mer. Nat. 
Bank, 403. ^^^^ 

Albany County Bank v. Amt, 779f>. 
V. People's Co-operative Ice Co., 
Albeitz V. Mellon, 373. 
Albert v. Hoffman, 832, 1578. 
Albertype Co. v. Kent & Stanley Co., 

Albraith v. Shepard, 571. 
Alcock V. Alcock, 93. 

V. Hill, 1311, 1319, 1339. 
V. Hopkins, 1275. 
Alden v. Barbour, 643. 
Aldermen v. Eastern R. R. Co., 1734&, 
Alderson, Ex parte, 23. 

V. Langdale, 1411. 
Alderton v. Williams, 576. 
Aldine Mfg. Co. v. Warner, 1116. 
Aldis V. Johnson, 611. 
Aldous V. Cornwell, 88, 1389. 
Aldred's Estate, In re, 714. 
Aldrich V. Grimes, 234. 

V. Jackson, 731, 738, 1676. 
V. Peckham, 156, 776. 
V. Smith, 1373a. 

Aldrich v. Stockwcll, 176. 

V. Whitaker, 81a. 
Aldridge v. Branch Bank, 69. 
Alexander v. Bank, S3 la, 866. 
V. Burchfield, 332, 1587. 
i-. Dutcher, 1229. 
V. Mackenzie, 280, 299. 
V. McDow, 62a. 
r. Munroe, 161. 
V. Rollins, 1230. 
t;. Scott, 940. 
V. Springfield, 728. 
V. Tnomtus, 42. 
V. Wilkes, 68. 
Alexander & Co. i-. Hazelrij^g, 106, 199. 
Alexandria Canal Co. v. Swann, 393. 
Alexandria, Ixiudoun, etc., R. Co. v. 

Burke, 833, 1517. 
Alexandria Sav. Inst. v. McVeigh, 1060. 
Alger V. Scott, 23. 
Allaire v. Hartshome, 749, 757, 758a, 

831a, 832«. 
Allan t'. Eldred, 971, 1276. 

V. Maw.son, 133. 
Allegheny Bank's .\ppeal, 1615. 
.\lleman"('. Manning, 1221. 
Allen v. .\merican Nat. Bank, 1637. 
V. Ayres, 1197. 
V. Berrvhill, 1306a. 
V. Bratton, 889. 
V. Brown, 1192b. 
V. Burgener, 1099. 
V. Chambers, 189, 710. 
V. Clark, 731a. 

Corn Exch. Bank, 684. 
Culver, 1251. 
Deming, 69. 
Doman, 1389. 
Dundas, 261, 1615. 
Dunn, 53, 156. 

Edmundson, 1016, 1038, 1049. 
First Nat. Bank, .392. 
Fourth Nat. Bank, 1360, 1369. 
V. Frazee, 860. 
V. Furbush, 157. 
V. Haley, 849. 
V. Harris, 573, 769a, 827. 
V. Hart, 1422, 1423, 1426. 
V. Hearn, 19.5a. 

I'. Herrick Hardware Co., 81, 156. 
V. Inhabitants of Jay, 1522. 
V. Keeves, 1578. 
V. Kemble, 898, 920, 1451. 
V. King, 1082. 
V. Leavens, 27. 
V. Merchants' Bank, 327, 328, 341, 

345, 656, 910, 930. 
V. Miles, 656. 
V. Newbury, 1197. 
V. O'Donald, 1311. 

References are to paragraphs marked § 


Allen V. Olympia Light & Power Co., 

V. Pegram, 1708a. 
1-. Rightmere, 1769, 1786, 1787. 
V. Rundle, 1769. 
V. Sea Fire, etc., Ins. Co., 36, 42b, 

V. Sharp, 1369. 
V. Sisson, 407. 
V. State Bank, 1465, 1479, 1696^ 

1-. Suydam, 329, 330, 454, 465, 4/b, 

V. Tarrant & Co., 1623. 
t». Tate, 255, llH3a. 
V. Union Hank, 1439. 
V. WilliamH, 1736, 1743. ^ 

Allen, Mcintosh & Co. i'. Farmers & 

Traders' Nat. Bank, 1470. 
AUenman r. Wheel.r, 1354. _ 

Allentown Nat. Bank v. KmieH, Mia. 
V. Clav Product .Supply Co., 779/^, 
AUerton v. Beld.n, 727. 
AUe.sbrook v. Roach, 1219. 
Alley V. Hopkin.s 1312, 1316. 

'v. Rogers, 325, 335. 
Allin r. Williams. 722. 
Allison «■. Juniata County, 431, 4J-, 

AUnutt V. AUnutt'fl Executrix, 185. 
Allumu. Perry, 741. 
AlUvood V. Ha«ledon, 99t), 1172. 
Almy I'. R<H'd, 1480. 
Alnutt I'. .\.shendcn, l<t>4, 1770. 
Alpena Nat. Bank i'. Crecnbaum, 205. 
ALsop V. Goodwin, SI. 
Alston V. Hartman, 1187. 

V. Orr, 1236. 
Altman v. Anton, 80, 156. 
V. Fowler, 62. 
t'. Rittershoeffer, 62. 
Alton r. First Nat. Bank, 1226. 
Alton Mfg. Co. V. Garrett Bibhcal Inst., 

382, 741. 
Alves I'. Ho<lgson, 914. 
Amberg v. Nachtway, 1317. 
Ambrose r. Evans, 1708(7. . 

American Agricultural Chemical LX). 

r. Graham, .573, 12.30. 
American Bank r. Jennes, 783. 
American Boiler Co. r. Fontham, 50. 
American Can Co. r. Erie Preserving 

Co., 1713a. 
American Car Co. v. Railway Co., 20o. 
American Cent. Ins. Co. v. Chicago & 

Alton Ry. Co., 1471. 
American Emigrant Co. r. Clark, 1584. 
American Exchange Bank v. Bank, 
t;. Blanchard, 41. 

American v. N. Y. Belt Co., 775, 791, 
815, 819, 824. 
V. Ulm, 792, 793, 793a. 
American Exch. Nat. Bank v. Ulm, 
792, 793, 793a. . 

t; American Hotel Victoria Co., 

V. First Nat. Bank, 394. 
American Freehold Land & Mort. Co. 

V. Sewell, 894, 922. 
American Gas Co. i'. Wood, 155. 
American Ins. Co. v. Oakley, 393. 

i;. Stratton, 443a. 
American Life Ins. Co. v. Emerson, 

1045. _ ^ _ 

American Machinery & Export Co. v. 

Druge Bros., 62. . 

American Nat. Bank t;. American Wood 
Paper Co., 1491a, 1500, 1501b. 
t'. Bangs, 13H3. 
I'. lianks, 1379. 
I . Cruger et al., 177. 
I'. Fountain, 819. 
r. Georgia R. Co., 1733a. 
V .] S. Minor <t Son, 781fc, 831a. 
, '. Junk Bros., 1(K)2, 10S2, 1085. 
V. Klock, 8^i5. 
V. IjOVc, 159. 
t' National Fertilizer Co., y»ti, 

1017, 1.W7. ^ ^^^ 

r. Omaha Cofhn Mfg. Co., 403. 
I'. Sprague, 60, 1.50. 
V. Wat kins, 203. 
American Sav. Bank & Trust Co. v. 

Helgesen, 700, 769a, 831a. 
American Seeding Machine Co. v. 

Slocum, 203. . ^ 

American Soda Fountain Co. t;. Hogue, 

1181a. . ^ ^ . 

American Sugar Refining Co. v. Eurip- 
ides, 1741. . ^ „ 
American Tr. & Bankmg Co. v. Boone, 

O09 210. 
American Trust Co. v. Canevin, 714, 

American Valley Co. v. Wyman, 777, 

Americaii W^ood Working Machinery 

Co. V. Norment, 390. 
Ames V. Brown, 1415. 

V. Meriam, 1634. 
Amherst Academy v. Cowles, 741, 743, 

Amis r. Witt, 24a. 
Amison t'. Ewing, 414. 
Ammidown v. Woodman, 62b, IZW. 
Ammon v. Gamble-Robinson Com. Co., 

t'. Martin, 24. 
Amner i;. Clark, 8, 9. 


References are to paragraphs marked § 

Amoskeag Bank v. Moore, 1 106. 
Amoskeag Mfg. Co. v. Gibbs, 8OO1. 
Amsbaugh v. Gcarhart, 1780. 
Amsinck v. Rogers, 867, 898, 908. 
Amy V. Dvihuque, 1513, 1510. 
Anchor v. Bank of England, 698. 
Ancona v. Marks, 1653. 
Anderson v. Bank, 1611a. 
V. Bullock, 32. 
V. Cleveland, 546. 
V. Dc Soer, 16a, 21, 451, 1644. 
1;. Drake, 460, 639, 640, 656, 1145, 

V. Dundee St. Bank, 138, 141. 
V. First Nat. Bank, 377, 499, 1702. 
V. Gill, 605, 1590, 1593. 
t;. Hall, 1328. 
t;. Heath, 500. 
V. Hick, 504a, 508. 
t'. Kreidler, 834a. 
t'. Langdale, 1377. 
V. Magruder, 81. 
V. Pearce, 36a, 305. 
V. Penick, 1326. 
V. Perkins, 1251, 1252. 
V. Robson, 1478. 
V. Rodgers, 328a, 1586, 1592. 
V. Royal Ex., etc., Co., 612. 
V. Thero, 81fi. 
V. Walter, 851. 
V. Warne, 1309. 
V. Weston, 65. 
Anderson County Comrs. v. Beal, 

Anderson & Co. v. Jones, 479. 
V. Stapel, 193, 410, 770, 782. 
Anderton v. Beck, 1124. 
Andes v. Ely, 1537. 
Andover Bank v. Grafton, 273, 422, 

435, 809. 
Andover Sav. Bank v. Adams, 1186a. 
Andrew v. Blachly, 1574, 1578. 
Andrews v. Baggs, 513, 514. 
V. Boyd, 1104, 1159. 
V. Calloway, 1373a 
V. Congar, 713a, 1436. 
V. Franklin, 46. 

V. German Nat. Bank, 1590, 1603. 
V. Hagadon, 1317?). 
V. Herriott, 867, 885. 
V. Hoxie, 11. 
V. Keeler, 1458a. 
V. Kramer et al., 669a, 677. 
V. Marrett, 1328. 
V. Pond, 788, 867, 879, 917, 923, 

924, 925. 
V. Robertson, 805. 
V. Russell, 1565. 
V. Schmidt, 183. 
V. Simmons, 144. 

Andrews v. Simms, 694. 
Andrews & Co. v. Hess, 81b. 
Androscoggin Bank v. Kimball, 83, 

Angaletos v. Meridian Nat. Bank of 

Ind., 409, 005, 1173, 1587. 
Angel V. Felt on, 1482. 
i;. McClellan, 224. 
V. Miller, 1312. 
Angier v. Smith, 197. 
Angle V. \. W. Alut. Life Ins. Co., 142, 
788, 795*1, 1373, 1386, 1408, 1411. 
Anglo-American Land &c. Co. v. 

Lombjud, 1500. 
Angus I'. Chicago Tr. & Sav. Bank, 

Aniba v. Yeomans, 688c. 
Ankeny v. Henry, 669a. 
Anketel v. Converse, 1252. 
Anniston Loan & Tr. Co., v. Stickney, 

1206, 1200a. 
Annifiton Pipe Works v. Furnace Co., 

1198, 1227. 
Annon v. Houck, 725, 1436. 
Annville Nat. Bank v. Kettering, 1093. 
Anon. t'. Harrison, 288. 
Ansel V. Baker, 548. 

V. Olson. 635. 
AnBon V. Bailey, 1162. 
Ansted i-. Sutter, 867. 
Anstell V. Rice, 1966. 
Antelope County Bank v. Wright, 

Anten t;. Gruner, 778. 
Anthony v. County of Jasper, 1538, 

Anthony & Dakota Elevator Co. v. 

Dawson & Byfield, 1713a. 
Antoni V. Wright,'448, 1726. 
Apperson v. Bynum, 640, 1119, 1180. 
V. Pritchard, 640. 

V. Union Bank, 656, 1059, 1060, 
1065, 1070. 
Apple V. Lesser, 1035, 1039, 1040. 
Appleby v. Beddolph, 41. 

V. Biddle, 41. 
Applegarth v. Abbott, 959, 1103. 

V. Robinson, 203. 
Appleton V. Parker, 1260, 1267. 
Aragon Coffee Co. v. Rogers, 805. 
Arayo v. Currill, 891a. 
Arbouin v. Anderson, 175, 774. 
Arbucle v. Templeton, 94, 1332. 
Arcangelow v. Thompson, 1052. 
Archer v. Bamford, 193. 

V. McCray, 207. 
Archibald v. Argall, 1260. 
Arden Lumber Co. v. Henderson Iron 

Works & Supply Co., 866. 
Arend v. Smith, 1316. 



References are to paragraphs marked § 

Arents v. Commonwealth, 441, 724a, 
782, 1489, 1490, 1490a, 1493, 
1496a, 1500, 1501a, 1505, 1507, 
1508, 1513, 1753, 1754, 1769, 
1774a, 1777, 1798. 
Argenbright v. Campbell, 32. 
Argo Steamship Co. v. Seago, 1742. 
Arlington v. Hinds, 1187. 
Armat v. Union Bank, 1479. 
Armendiaz v. Sana, 867. 
Armfield v. Allport, 128, 688. 

t'. Tafo, 234. 
Armijo v. Henry, 183. 
Armington v. Gas Light Co., 327. 
Armistead v. ArmLstead, 643, 645. 

V. Brooke, 1252. 

V. Butler, 1428. 

t'. Ward, 1260, 1272, 1317, 1329. 
Armitt r. Braeme, 83. 
Armour v. McMichael, 867. 

V. Michigan Cent. R. Co., 1733a, 
Armour Bros. v. Riley County Bank, 

698</, 717. 
Armour Packing Co. v. Davia, 3406. 
Arms V. A.shley, 1687. 
Armsinck r. Rogers, 1566. 
Armstrong r. .\nicrican Exch. Bank, 9. 

V. Armstrong, 180. 

V. Brolaiiki, l.')9r). 

V. Cache Valley Land Co., 262, 

V. Chadwick, 1048, 1147. 

V. Chemical Nat. Bank, 3346. 

V. Christiana, 983. 

V. Gibson, 759, 764. 

V. Harshman, 145, 703, 7076. 
In re, 496. 

I'. Johnston, 1183a. 

V. Kirkpatrick, 400. 

V. Nat. Bank, 139. 

V. Noble, 725. 

V. Pratt, 1432. 

V. Scott, 80, 790. 

t'. Southern Express Co., 196a. 

V. Steams, 775. 

r. Thurston, 1172. 

I'. Toler, 200, 866. 
Arm.strong, Recr., v. Warner, 1435a, 

Armsworth v. Scotten, 1672, 1672a. 
Amau 17. First Nat. Bank of Florida, 

Amd V. Allesworth, 776, 819. 

V. Sjoblom, 199, 789. 
Amett f. Pinson, 164, 879, 895. 
Arnold r. Camp, 1299. 

V. Cheque Bank, 13726. 

V. Dresser, 455, 594, 654, 1149, 

Arnold v. Hopper, 274. 

t'. Jones, 1398. 

V. Kinloch, 954, 983. 

r. Lane, 790, 812, 819. 

V. Potter, 894. 

V. Revonet, 254. 

V. Richmond Iron Works, 213. 

V. Rock River, 51a. 

V. Ruggles, 1708a. 

t;. Sprague, 108, 186, 305, 663. 

V. Stackpole, 303, 305. 

V. WUts, 203. 
.\rnot «'. Bingham, 336. 

V. Erie R. Co., 386. 

V. Symonds, 688, 7\3d. 

V. Woodbum, 725. 
Arnott f. Redfeme, 917. 
Arpin v. Owens, 174a. 
Artisans' Bank v. Viirk Bank, 899. 
Ash V. Clark, 195a, 808. 
Ashby V. Ashby, 102. 
Ashe V. Beasley & Co., 926, 927, 955, 

.Vshford t'. Robinson, 1764. 
.\shley V. Bd. of Supervisors, 1531, 

V. Dowling, 357. 

V. Gunton, 1019. 
Ashpitel V. Brvan, 1352a. 
Ashton t;. Fre«"stun, 1290, 1291. 

t'. P>'e, 1286. 
Ashuelot Mfg. Co. t-. Marsh, 393. 
Ashurst V. Bank of Au.stralia, 680, 1505. 

V. Roval Bank, 724a. 
Askegaard v. Dalen, 815. 
Askell I'. Lambert, 150. 
Aspinall f. Wake, 262, 535. 
Aspinwall v. Commissioners, 1524. 
Assurance Society v. Edmonds, 709. 
Atcheson v. Scott, 49. 
Atchison r. Butcher, 1496a, 1500, 1533. 
Atherton v. Marcy, 185. 
Atkins V. Blake, 775, 1468. 

V. Cobb, 699. 

I'. Owens, 1288. 

V. Plympton, 122. 
Atkinson v. Bennet, 712, 714. 

I'. Brooks, 829a, 831a. 

V. Hawden, 1411. 

V. Manks, 161, 514. 
Atlanta Guano Co. v. Hunt, 8316. 
.\tlanta Nat. Bank v. Burke, 1369, 

p. pougla.s, 1311. 
Atlantic Bank i'. Merchants' Bank, 

1607, 1610. 
Atlantic City St. R. Co. t;. American 

Car Co., 205. 
Atlantic, etc., M. Ins. Co. t;. Boies, 




References are to paragraphs marked § 

Atlantic Nat. Bank v. Fertilizing Co., 

V. Franklin, 831c. 

V. George, 1643. 
Atlantic Guano Co. v. Hunt, 8316. 
Atlantic State Bank v. Savery, 365, 

Atlantic Tr. Co. v. Kinderhook & Hud- 
son Ry. Co., 1489. 
Atlas Bank v. Doyle, 818, 832a. 
Atlas Nat. Bank v. Holm, 196, 197, 
774, 775. 

V. Savery, 365. 
Atlas Steamboat Co. v. Columbian 

Land Co., 1221. 
Attenborough v. McKenzie, 480. 
Attorney -General v. Continental Life 
Ins. Co., lOo, 1644. 

V. Life & Fire Ins. Co., 382. 
Attoyac River Lumbf>r Co. v. Payne, 59. 
Atwater v. Farthing, 704. 

V. Walker, 894. 
Atwood V. Bank of Chillicothe, 1682. 

V. Crowdie, 183a. 

V. Dumas, 382. 

V. Hazledon, 996. 

V. Little Bonanza Quicksilver Co., 

V. Munnings, 276, 280, 290, 299, 

V. Rattenbury, 1182. 

t'. Weeden, 195a. 
Aubert v. Maze, 200. 

V. Walsh, 1648. 
Aud V. Magruder, 1316. 
Auerbach v. Le Soeur Mill Co., 32a, 

V. Pritchett, 55. 
August V. Creque, 403. 
Augusta Bank v, Augusta, 1495, 1523. 
Augusta Nat. Bank v. Hewins, 1458. 
Augusta Wine Co. v. Weippert, 357. 
Aukland v. Arnold, 1294. 
Aultman & Co. v. Teeple, 724a. 
Aultman & Taylor Co. v. Gunderson, 

V. Smith, 1316. 
Aultman Co. v. Heffner, 1789. 
Aultman, Miller & Co. v. Hawk, 81. 

V. Leichting, 177, 183. 
Aultman Threshing & Engine Co. v. 

Knoll, 81a. 
Auriol V. Thomas, 1438. 
Aurora City v. West, 807, 1500, 1513, 

1514, 1522, 1523, 1550, 1557. 
Aurora Nat. Bank v. Dils, 717, 1612a. 
Aurora State Bank v. Hayes-Eames 

Elevator Co., 1631. 
Austen v. United States Nat. Bank, 


Austin V. Boyd, 713. 

V. Bunyard, 1578. 

i;. Curtis, 1329. 

V. Dorwin, 1317. 

V. Hamilton, 1758. 

V. Imus, 917, 920. 

V. Papanti, 1221, 1227. 

V. Rodman, 1076. 

V. Vandenmark, 365. 

V. Whit look, 32. 
Au.stin, 'romlin.son & Webster Mfg. 

Co. V. Heiser, 672. 
Auten V. Manistee Nat. Bank, 331, 
390, 392, 636. 

V. United States Nat. Bank, 392, 
394, 769a, 1421a, 1431. 
Averett's Admr. v. Booker, 50, 104, 161, 

Averill v. Second Nat. Bank, 724a. 
Avery v. Miller, 721. 

I'. Stewart, ()20, 627. 
Avon Springs Sanitarium Co. v. Kel- 
logg, 188a. 
Awde V. Dixon, 854. 
Ayer v. Hutchins, 775. 

I'. Hutchinson, 1233. 
Ayers v. Bums, 225. 

V. Doying, 791. 

V. Farmers' Bank, 333. 
Aymar «;. Beers, 454, 466, 478, 1125. 

V. Sheldon, 899, 908, 909, 910, 
Ayrault v. McQueen, 827, 831c. 

V. Pacific Bank, 341, 342. 
Ayres, In re, 448. 
Ayres v. Milroy, 854. 
Ayrey v. Fearnsides, 60. 


Babcock v. Beman, 302, 415, 855. 

V. Blanchard, 1343. 

I'. Bryant, 17856. 

V. Stone, 354. 

V. Young, 834, 834a. 
Babcock, In re, 1339. 
Babylon v. Duttera, 1215. 
Bacchus V. Richmond, 1206. 
Bach V. Brown, 1213. 

V. Zimmerman, 1319. 
Bachelor v. Priest, 454, 465, 572, 573, 

987, 1201, 1223, 1230, 1230a, 1399. 
Bacigalupo v. Parrilli, 1596. 
Backers v. Shepherd, 1104. 
Backhouse v. Harrison, 773, 1503. 

V. Selden, 895, 921. 
Backman v. Charlestown, 1550, 1555. 
Backus V. Danforth, 620, 743. 

V. Shipherd, 1096. 

V. Spauling, 187. 

References are to paragraphs marked § 



Bacon v. Bacon, 89, 3265, 334b, 604, 
607, 1318, 1327, 1328. 
V. Dodge, 131, 154. 
V. Fitch, 99. 
V. Hanna, 1115. 
V. Harris, 607, 612, 726. 
V. HoUoway, 187. 
V. Leo, 197. 
r. Miss. Ins. Co., 384. 
V. Montauk Brewmg Co., loo, 6m. 
V. Page, 88. 
V. Pomeroy, 1230. 
V. Searles, 1237. 
Bacon, Dawson & Co. v 

Bank, 386. 
Badcock v. Steadman, 68a. 
Bade v. Feay, 177. 
Badger v. Stephens, I9bb. 

V. Sutton, 1491a. 
Badnall i'. Siimuel, 1318. 
Baerr. L«i)iKTt,_1109a, 1115, 1149. 

V. Terrv, 867. t^ i • 

Baeschlin v. Chamberlain Bankmg 

House, .564. 
Bivclev V. Cohen, 1759. 
Bailey v. Bidwell, 166, 167, 808, 815. 
i-. Birkhofer, 90. 
V. Bodenhani, ir)90, 1599. 
I- County of Buchanan, 15095. 
V. Devine, 870, HOla. 
t;. Dozier, 926, 940. 
t.. Edwards, 1337. 
V. Finch, 1612a. 
V. Gilman Bank, 1373, 1398. 
V. Heald, 898. 
V. Hill, 7.52. 
V. Pardridge. 1623. 
V. Porter, 636. 
V. Rawley, 292. 
V. Smith, 758a, 779a. 
V. Smock, 108. 

I'. Southwestern Bank, 1088a. 
V. Taber, 63. 
V. Talbreath Bros., 740o. 
V. Taylor, 1418, 1420, 1421a. 
V. Wood, 532. 
Bailev Loan Co. f. Hall, 351. 
Bailie v. Augusta Sav. Bank, 328a, 341, 

342 1623. 
Bain v. Whitehaven, etc., R-.po., 887. 
Bainbridge v. City of Louisville, 1234, 
1461, 1470. 1480. 
V. Wilcocks, 896. 
Baine v. Williams, 1252. 
Baines v. Coos Bay, etc., R. & Nav 

Co., 183, 392a. 
Baird v. Blagrove, 32. 
V. Cochran, 488. 
V. Vines, 62. 
Baker v. Arnold, 745. 

Baker v. Baker, 268. 

t.. Birch, 1143, 1082. 

V. Chambers, 443a. 

V. Chambliss, 406. 

V. Collins, 176. 

V. Denning, 688a. 

V. Flower, 1305. 

V. Jabber, 4976. 

t'. Leland, 1707. 

V. Martin, 1236 

I'. Morris, 1023. 

V. Robinson, 713a. 

V. Scott, 1095a. 

I'. Stackpole, 1253. 

V Union Stock Yards Nat. Bank, 

r. Union Trust Co., 726. 
v. Wahrmund, 1760. 
r. Walker, 827, 1329. 
r. Wheaton, 1228. 
V. Williamson, 1646. 
Baker, Admr., v. Burkett, 832a. 
I Balbach v. Frelmghuyscn, 33b, 6W, 
Balcetti v. Serani, 1350. 
Balch, Ex parte, 1316. 
Balcombe I'. Northrup, 443. 
Baldwin v. Bank of Louisiana, 341, 6*6. 
V. Bank of Newburg, 1188. 
V. Barrows, 849n. 
t-. Brickcr, 849, 849a. 
1-. Daly, 1290. 
V. Fagan, 851. 
V. Farnsworth, 638. 
V. Hale, 1283. 
I'. Hall, 875. 

V. Hart, 183. , ^^^^ 

V. Haskell Nat. Bank, 1385. 
V. Richardson, 1047, 1120. 
V. Shuter, 130, 815. 
V. Van Deusen, 734. 
Baldwin's Estate, In re, 1703. 
Baldwin FertiUzer Co. v. Carmichael, 

669, 1754. ^ ^ 

BaUour v. Sea, Fire, etc., Ins. Co., 

Balk V. Simmons, 1.596. 
Balknap v. Nat. Bank of North Amer- 
ica, 1660. 
Ball t;. Allen, 96, 1.584. 
V. Greaud, 1095a. 
V. Powers, 69, 70. 
i;. Putman, 195. 
V. Warden, 612. 
Ballard v. Bank, llGSd. 
V. Barton, 185. 
V. Burnside, 119. 
V. Burton, 1699. 
V. Fuller, 1629. 
t;. Insurance Co., 1373a, 1378. 



References are to paragraphs marked § 

r,.illingalls V. Gloster, 104, 671, 669a, 

919, 1213. 
l'>;illinger v. Edwards, 764. 
l'.allouv. Earlc, 1741. 

V. Talbot, 306, 307. 
r..illston Spa Bank v. Marine Bank, 

Pialme v. Wambaugh, 326. 
liiilsam V. Mutual Alliance Trust Co. 

of N. Y., 1639. 
Haltes Land Stone & Oil Co. v. Sutton, 

Baltimore, etc., R. Co. v. First Nat. 

Bank of Alexandria, 497b. 
Baltimore & Ohio R. v. Wilkins, 1733. 
Baltzer v. Kansas P. R. Co., 643. 
Bamford v. Boynton, 714. 
Banard v. Barton, 185. 
Banbury v. Lissett, 509. 
Bancroft t'. Hale, 1016. 
Bane v. Gridley, 1458a. 
Bange v. Flint, 835. 
Banghcr v. Nelson, 1565. 
Bangor Bank v. Hook, 1439, 1455. 
Bangor Sav. Bank v. City of Stillwater, 

Bangs V. Mosher, 1329. 
Banister v. Kenston, 174a. 

V. Kenton, 742, 1192. 
Bank v. Alexander, 1590. 

V. Arnold, 195o, 198. 

V. Bank, 327, 340d, 340e, 341, 698d, 
995, 995a. 

V. Barling, 130. 

V. Bayley, 17346, 1734c. 

V. Board of Commissioners, 1540, 

V. Booze, 45a. 

V. Bradley, 995, 1039, 1171. 

V. Brewing Co., 22. 

V. Brooking, 972. 

V. Burgwyn, 815, 819. 

V. Butler, 343. 

V. Cason, 795b. 

V. Chattanooga Pulley Co., 833. 

V. Chicago Title, etc., Co., 41. 

V. Chillicothe, 1529, 1530. 

V. Coal Co., 7796. 

V. Commercial Bank, 341. 

V. Cook, 305. 

V. Cooper, 894. 

V. Couch, 1311, 1312, 1321. 

V. Cummings, 1624, 17346. 

V. Davis, 7586. 

V. Dibrell, 991. 

V. Durfee, 741. 

V. Edholm, 789. 

V. Elis, 62a. 

V. Flanders, 688a. 

V. Frederickson, 189. 

Bank v. Good, 1266, 1267, 1332. 

V. Groome, 1633, 1634. 

V. Hadley, 422a. 

V. Hayden, 689a. 

V. Hughlett, 292. 

V. Humphrey, 854, 1190. 

V. Hunt, 790. 

V. Hysell, 1199. 

V. Jefferson, 175. 

V. Keith, 194. 

V. King, 336. 

V. Kowalsky, 20. 

V. Lanier, 1708, 1708/, 1709. 

«;. Layne, 175, 1312. 

V. Lewis, 1209. 

V. Loan & Trust Co., 532. 

V. Looney, 271, 7796, 816, 1328. 

V. Lumber Co., 709. 

V. McNair, 758. 

V. Mallan, 1200. 

V. Mann, 198, 880. 

V. Manning, 80. 

V. Matson, 1324, 1328. 

V. Millard, 334. 

V. Morrison, 1421a. 

V. Mudgett, 3696. 

V. Myers, 1391. 

V. Nat. Union Trust Co., 1643. 

V. Nimocks, 1311. 

V. Nixon, 713c. 

I'. Pegram, 710. 

V. Penland, 797, 802. 

V. Rasmessen, 62. 

V. Rider, 7956. 

V. Rohrer, 834. 

V. Sammer, 1312. 

V. Sargent, 819. 

V. Schneidermeyer, 326a. 

V. Sherer, 663. 

i;. Shook, 1289a. 

V. Simmons, 63. 

V. Simpson, 1322. 

V. Slaughter, 1007. 

V. Sneed, 182. 

V. Stillwell & Co., 1405. 

V. Stockell, 824. 

V. Supervisors, 87. 

V. Swink, 1312. 

V. Trudeau, 769a. 

V. Union Tr. Co., 1623, 1625. 

V. Urich, 1100. 

V. Wade, 1405, 1406. 

V. Whitehead, 802. 

V. Wing, 262. 

V. Wolff, 1385, 1398, 1399. 

V. Wood, 1339. 

V. Zom, 643. 
Bank Commissioners v. Lafayette 

Bank, 1682. 
Banker v. Coons, 46. 



References are to paragraphs marked § 

Bankers' Iowa State Bank v. Mason 

Hand Lathe Co., 189, 790, 13n. 
Bankhead v. Owen, 73L 
Banking Co. v. Morehead, 263. 

V. Saving Bank, 713a. 
Bank of Albion v. Smith, 719a. 
Bank of Alexandria v. Swann, 979a, 

983, 1036, 1030. 
Bank of America v. Indian Banking 
Co., 1637. 

V. Shaw, 1022. 

V. Waydell, 698d. 

V. Wilson, 703. 

V. Woodworth, 1383. 
Bank of Antigo Union Trust Co., 1638. 
Bank of Atchison County v. Bohart 
Commission Co., 551. 

V. Durfee, 1709. 
Bank of Attica v. Manufacturers' 

Bank, llOSd. 
Bank of Baraboo v. Laird, 769a. 
Bank of Batavia v. N. Y., L. E. W. R. 

Co., 1733a. 
Bank of Bengal v. Pagan, 284, 1634. 

V. McLeod, 284. 
Bank of Bennington v. Raymond, 454. 
Bank of Benson i'. Jones, 68a. 
Bank of British Columbia v. Jeffs, 1317, 

Bank of British N. Am. v. Ellis, 174, 
189, 669, 694o, 728, 812. 

V. Hooper, 410. 

V. Merchants' Nat. Bank, 1370. 
Bank of Cahfomia v. Union Packing 

Co., 62, 1202. 
Bank of Cape Fear v. Seawell, 985. 
Bank of Carroll v. Taylor, 60. 
Bank of Cartersville v. Gunter, 68a. 
Bank of Chadron v. Anderson, 741, 821. 
Bank of Charleston v. Chambers, 1192. 
Bank of Charlotte v. Hart, 1689. 
Bank of Chenango v. Hyde, 1190. 

V. Hide, 793. 

V. Root, 999a. 
Bank of Chillicothe v. Dodge, 1699. 
Bank of Clark County v. Oilman, 336. 
Bank of Columbia v. Lawrence, 1015, 
1016, 1018, 1022, 1033, 1058. 

V. Magrader, 622, 1023. 

V. Patterson, Admr., 388. 
Bank of Commerce v. Baird Min. Co., 
292, 392a, 396. 

V. Barrett, 797, 1394. 

V. Bemero, 322. 

V. Bogy, 16a, 20, 21. 

V. Bright, 392. 

V. Broyles, 177. 

t;. Chambers, 1005, 1024, 1027. 

V. Fuqua, 62. 

t;. Scofield, 183. 

Bank of Commerce v. Selden, 366. 

V. Union Bank, 349a, 533, 540, 
1362, 1363, 1654a, 1659, 1661. 

V. Wright, 184, 827, 830, 831a. 
Bank of Commerce of West Superior v. 

Ross, 1760. 
Bank of Commonwealth v. Curry, 86a, 
142, 490, 854. 

V. Letcher, 1266. 

V. Mudgett, 637, 964. 
Bank of Covington v. Cannon, 375. 
Bank of Cumberland v. McKinley, 69. 

V. May berry, 69. 
Bank of Decatur v. Hodges, 940, 958. 
Bank of Deer Lodge v. Hope Mining 

Co., 290. 
Bank of Duncan v. Brittain, 62. 
Bank of England v. Anderson, 16066. 

I'. Newman, 588, 739, 1264. 

V. Vagliano Bros., 1663. 
Bank of Fort Madison v. Alden, 355, 

Bank of Gallipolis v. Trimble, 890. 
Bank of Genesee v. Patchin Bank, 298, 

385, 386, 1188, 1398. 
Bank of Geneva v. Howlett, 1016, 

1022, 1025. 
Bank of Georgia v. Lewin, 868, 922. 
Bank of Ountersville v. Jones Cotton 

Co., 51. 
Bank of Hamburg v. Flynn, 7956. 

V. Johnson, 294. 
Bank of Herington v. Wangerin, 1373. 
Bank of Horton v. Brooks, 1316. 
Bank of Houston v. Day, 85, 144. 
Bank t;. Hubbell, 336. 
Bank of Indian Territory v. First Nat. 

Bank, 532, 698d, 775. 
Bank of Ireland v. Archer, 556. 

V. Beresford, 790. 

V. Evans' Trustees, 1405. 

V. Evans, 842a. 
Bank of Jamaica v. Jefferson, 709, 710, 

Bank of Kansas City v. Mills_, 576, 

1198, 1229, 1245. 
Bank of Kentucky v. Adams Express 
Co., 1729a. 

V. Garey, 581, 583. 

V. Hickey, 1685. 

V. Pursley, 945, 946. 

V. Thomberry, 1682. 

V. Wister, 729. 

t;. Wisert, 1665. 

V. Wooster, 10a. 
Bank of Laddonia v. Bright-Coy Com- 
mission Co., 565, 867, 891a,. 

V. Friar, 1181a, 1230a. 
Bank of Le Roy v. Hardin, 1612. 



References are to paragraphs marked § 

Bank of Limestone v. Penick, 86a. 

V. Perrick, 142. 
Bank of Lindsborg v. Ober, 341, 960. 
Bank of Lock Haven v. Smith, 1311, 

Bank of Louisiana v. City of New 
Orleans, 1505. 

V. Mansaker, 1017. 

V. Tournillon, 1028. 
Bank of Louisville v. Ellery, 491. 

V. First Nat. Bank, 341. 
Bank of Luvernc v. Birmingham Fer- 
tilizer Co., 789a. 
Bank of Malvern v. Burton, 1266a, 

Bank of Manchester v. Glasen, 687, 947. 

V. Slason, 1024. 
Bank of Maridian v. Strauss, 336. 
Bank of Marietta v. Pindall, 666, 667. 
Bank of Marysville v. Brewing Co., 

Bank of Memphis v. White, 1685. 
Bank of Metropolis v. First Nat. Bank 
of Jersey City, 336. 

V. Jones, 1217. 

V. New England Bank, 183a, 336, 
337, 338. 
Bank of Michigan v. Ely, 561, 558. 
Bank of Middlebury v. Bingham, 1190. 
Bank of Missouri v. Hull, 1217. 

V. Phillips, 854. 

V. Wright, 1454. 
Bank of Mobile v. Brown, 927. 

V. Brunn, 1570, 1651. 

V. Hudgins, 343. 

V. Meagher, 1694. 
Bank of Monette v. Hale, 789a, 819. 
Bank of Monongahela Valley v. Wes- 
tern, 367, 3696, 779. 
Bank of Monroe v. E. C. Drew Inv. 
Co., 357, 371. 

V. Mining Co., 815. 
Bank of Montgomery v. Walker, 1335a. 
Bank of Monticello v. Dooly, 163, 189. 
Bank of Montpelier v. Montpelier Lum- 
ber Co., 714, 929, 1311. 
Bank of Montreal v. Buchanan, 262. 

V. Clark, 1706. 

V. Ingerson, 326. 

V. Page, 370, 373. 

V. Recknagel, 551. 

V. Thomas, 551a, 1799. 
Bank of Morgan City v. Herwig, 189, 

Bank of New Hanover v. Bridgers, 814, 

1266, 1272. 
Bank of Newton v. Simmons, 769a. 
Bank of New York v. American Dock & 
Trust Co., 284. 

V. Bank of Ohio, 417, 1188. 

Bank of New York v. Vanderhorst, 824. 
Bank of Niagara v. McCraken, 1685. 

V. Roosevelt, 1691. 
Bank of North America v. Bangs, 1622a. 

V. Barriere, 611. 

V. Meredith, 1251. 
Bank of North Carolina v. Bank of 

Cape Fear, 647. 
Bank of Ohio Valley v. Lockwood, 174, 

183, 189, 205, 1272, 1275, 1378, 

Bank of Old Dominion «;. McVeigh, 

972, 973. 
Bank of Ontario v. Hoskins, 1966. 
Bank of Orange County v. Colby, 908. 
Bank of Orleans v. Merrill, 1699, 1703. 

V. Smith, 341, 344. 

V. Whittemore, 1180. 
Bank of Ozark v. Hanks, 196, 775, 819. 
Bank of Paris v. Pearson, 729, 812. 
Bank of Pcidmont v. Smith, 1192. 
Bank of Peru v. Farnsworth, 1703. 
Bank of Pittsburg v. Neal, 142, 483, 

775, 814, 1503. 
Bank of Port Gibson v. Baugh, 370. 
Bank of Port Jefferson v. Darling, 713e, 

1001, 1182. 
Bank of Ravenswood v. Wetzel, 395, 

Bank of Red Oak v. Orris, 996. 
Bank of Repubhc v. Baxter, 1608. 

V. Carrington, 832. 

V. Millard, 1636, 1636a, 1638, 
Bank of Richland v. Nicholson, 161, 

Bank of Rochester v. Bowen, 365. 

V. Gould, 979a. 

V. Gray, 909, 948, 960. 

V. Mintent, 304. 

V. Monteath, 363. 
Bank of Rome v. Village of Rome, 1500, 

1537, 1550, 1553. 
Bank of Rutland v. Buck, 1190. 

V. Woodroof, 501. 
Bank of St. Albans v. Gilliland, 184, 

369, 831c. 
Bank of St. Louis v. Rice, 552. 
Bank of St. Mary's v. St. John, 1682. 
Bank of Saginaw v. Title & Trust Co. 

of Western Pennsylvania, 10. 
Bank of Salina v. Babcock, 827, 831c. 
Bank of Saline v. Wingfield, 643. 
Bank of Sampson v. Hatcher, 795a, 

797, 815. 
Bank of Sandusky v. Scoville, 184, 

Bank of Santa Cruz v. Bartlett, 427. 
Bank of Scotland v. Dominion, 347. 

V. Hamilton, 477. 



References are to paragraphs marked § 

Bank of Seaford v. Conneway, 1085, 

Bank of Seneca v. First Nat. Bank, 

Bank of Sherman v. Apperson, 41, 104, 

Bank of Sonoma County v. Gove, 726a. 
Bank of South CaroUna v. Flagg, 657. 

V. Humphreys, 371. 

V. M'WilUe, 291. 

V. Myers, 1130, 1326. 
Bank of Sparta v. Butts, 1713a. 
Bank of Spartonburg v. Mahon, 713a, 

Bank of Spearfish v. Graham, 789. 
Bank of Springfield v. First Nat. Bank, 

Bank of State t;. Muskingum Branch 

Bank, 687. 
Bank of State of Missouri v. Vaughn, 

Bank of Stockton v. Jones, 742. 
Bank of Stratton v. Dixon, 301. 
Bank of S>Tacuse v. HoUister, 600, 656. 
Bank of Tennessee v. Barksdale, 1767. 

V. Smith, 1154. 
Bank of Troy v. Topping, 263, 270. 
Bank of Ukiah v. Mohr, 283. 
Bank of United States v. Bank of 
Georgia, 334, 533, 1225, 1360, 
1655, 1656. 

V. Beirne, 275, 703, 999a. 

V. Carneal, 656, 985, 1022, 1028. 

V. Corcoran, 1003, 1018. 

V. Dandridge, 388. 

V. Daniel, 1260. 

V. Davis, 391. 

V. Donallv, 882, 885, 902. 

V. Dunn, 395, 1217. 

V. Goddard, 331, 987, 992. 

V. Hatch, 1019, 1305, 1307, 1320, 

V. Lane, 1024. 

V. Leathers, 926, 1149. 

V. Lyman, 1159, 1165, 1189. 

V. Macalister, 3266, 3346. 

V. Norwood, 1015. 

V. Russell, 1373a. 

1-. Sill, 1479, 1482, 1695. 

V. Smith, 644, 962. 

V. United States, 576, 898, 920, 
1230, 1439, 1446, 1458. 
Bank of University v. Tuck, 832a, 1227. 
Bank of Utica v. Bender, 1033, 1058, 
1115, 1121. 
V. Davidson, 1032. 
V. Hillard, 1217. 
V. Ives, 1316, 1328. 
V. M'Kinster, 324, 346. 
V. Phillips, 1032. 

Bank of Utica v. Smalley, 1708e. 

V. Smedes, 324. 

V. Smith, 455, 572, 576, 600, 991, 

V. Wager, 614. 
Bank of Vergennes v. Cameron, 365, 

369, 654, 953, 961, 1236. 
Bank of Virginia v. Ward, 1479, 1695, 

Bank of Washington v. Triplett, 324, 

329, 340, 344, 345, 449, 452, 

589, 614, 634, 908, 931, 932. 
Bank of Williamson v. McDowell 

County Bank, 1655. 
Bank of Winona v. Wofford, 130, 693. 
Banks v. Marshall, 1243. 
Bankston i'. Kennesaw Guano Co., 32. 
Banner, Ex parte, 1343. 
Bant V. Donly, 1325. 
Bantz I'. Adams, 1230. 
Barbaroux v. Waters, 658, 962, 1085. 
Barber v. ^tna Fuel Co., 184. 

V. Backhouse, 201, 756. 

V. Baker, 1426. 

t;. Bochm, 203. 

V. Gingell, 296, 299, 1353. 

V. Johnson, 509. 

V. McHenry County Hedge Fence 
Co., 63, 81. 

V. Mechanics' Ins. Co., 382. 

V. Stroub, 1181a. 

V. Van Horn, 356, 999. 
Barbour v. Bank, 1431. 

V. Banker, 1426. 

V. Bayen, 617. 
Barclay v. Bailey, 602, 603. 

V. Weaver, 671, 1093, 1106. 

Ex parte, 987, 990. 
Barco v. Taylor, 193. 
Barcroft v. Denny, 504. 
Barden v. Hornthal, 7136. 
Bardsley v. Delp, 832. 

t;. Sternberg, 428, 1221. 

V. Washington MUl Co., 90, 571, 
Barger v. Farnham, 69, 90a, 177, 183, 

710, 879. 
Baring v. Clark, 526. 

V. Reeder, 1217. 
Barkalow v. Johnson, 1149, 1152, 1163. 
Barker v. Barker, 190, 1107, 1124. 

V. Barth, 742. 

V. Clarke, 1146. 

V. Hall, 1014. 

V. Lichtenberger, 184, 782. 

V. Loring, 933, 1457. 

V. Mechanics' Ins. Co., 386, 405. 

V. Prentiss, 199a. 

V. Sartori, 53. 
V. Sterne, 65, 870. 



References are to paragraphs marked § 

Barker v. The Swallow, 1741. 

V. Valentine, 724a, 725. 
Barley v. Freeman, 1767. 
Barling v. Bank, 130. 
Barlow v. Bishop, 242, 681, 1231. 
V. Coggan, 593. 
V. Congregational Society, 298, 

405, 407. 
V. Cooper, 1306, 1326. 
V. Gregory, 629. 
V. Planters' Bank, 626. 
V. Scott, 725, 725a. 
Barraby v. Wolfe, 749, 758a, 832a. 
Barnaby v. Barnaby, 234. 
Barnard v. Backhaus, 195a. 
V. Campbell, 1727, 1750a. 
V. dishing, 151, 159. 
V. Guslin, 719. 
Barnard State Bank v. Fesler, 729. 
Barnes v. Bank, 392. 

V. Century Sav. Bank, 1309. 

V. Gorman, 60. 

V. Hedley, 207. 

V. McCullers, 1312. 

V. McMuUin, 1435a. 

V. Ontario Bank, 382, 390, 391, 

V. Reynolds, 1000, 1001. 
V. Sammons, 1339. 
t;. Town of Lacon, 1551. 
V. Van Keuren, 1387, 1389. 
V. Vaughn, 654a, 658. 
Barnet v. Smith, 497, 1606, 1606a, 1623. 
Barnett v. Allen, 627. 
V. Brandao, 831a. 
V. Cecil, 1342. 
V. Denison, 1543. 
V. Elwood Grain Co., 654. 
V. Lichenstein, 248. 
V. Nolte, 713a. 
V. Offerman, 174. 
V. Ringgold, 574. 
V. Wing, 569, 1770. 
Barnett Baking Co., In re, 1343. 
Barney v. Earle, 832. 

V. Newcomb, 896, 897, 1188, 1756. 
Barnhart v. Goldstein, 196. 
Barnsdall v. Waltemeyer, 18, 508, 553. 
Barnum v. Phenix County, 769a. 

V. Reed, 264. 
Barnum Grain Co. v. Great Northern 

Ry. Co., 1740a. 
Barnwell v. Mitchell, 1030. 
Barr v. Boyer, 1311. 

V. Mitchell, 713a. 
Barrett v. Allen, 627. 
V. Armstrong, 1340. 
V. Barrett, 883. 
V. Charlston Bank 1133. 
V. County Court, 1500, 1545, 1548. 

Barrett v. Dodge, 895. 

V. Evans, 1015 

V. Juday, 94. 

V. Goddard, 1279a. 

t;. Hinckley, 748a, 834. 

V. Mahnken, 177, 183. 

V. Russell, 683. 

V. Skinner, 94. 

V. Weber, 857. 
Barrick v. Austin, 163, 392, 728. 
Barringer v. Wilson, 717. 
Barrington v. Bank, 388. 

V. Skinner, 205. 
Barroll v. Foreman, 769a, 795a, 1230a, 

1231, 1612a. 
Barron t'. Cady, 1338. 

V. How, 1267. 
Barrow v. Blassingame, 769. 

1-. Coles, 1745. 

V. Pike, 173. 
Barry v. Clark, 527. 

«;. Equitable Life Assn., 858. 

V. Merchants' Exchange Co., 382, 

V. Morse, 719, 719a, 1093. 

V. Mutual Life Ins. Co., 63. 

V. Stover, 879. 
Barry Co. v. McGlothlin, 1185. 
Barson v. Huntington, 68. 
Barstow v. Hiriart, 985. 

V. Savage Mining Co., 1708, 1708^. 

V. Stone, 1230. 
Barthe v. LacroLx, 188. 
Bartholomew v. First Nat. Bank, 

i;. Leaman, 1215. 
Bartlett v. Benson, 724a. 

V. Eddy, 742. 

V. First Nat. Bank, 296. 

V. Isbell, 349, 992. 

V. Leathers, 627. 

V. Pitman, 1316. 

V. Robinson, 1023. 

V. Same, 63, 63a. 

V. Tucker, 141, 304, 307. 
Bartlett Estate Co. v. Fraser, 94, 741. 
Bartley v. State, 427, 1621. 
Barto V. Schenck, 715. 
Barton v. American Nat. Bank, 711. 

V. Baker, 1131, 1137, 1172. 

V. Bennett, 1772. 

V. Farmers' Nat. Bank, 62a. 

V. Haltom, 1340. 

V. Trent, 731, 737. 

V. Wilkins, 80. 
Barton County v. Walker, 1560, 1564. 
Bartrum v. Caddy, 783. 
Bartsch v. Atwater, 731, 874. 
Bascom v. Young, 368. 
Bascom et al. v. Toner et al., 1470. 



References are to paragraphs marked § 

Bashford v. Shaw, 1786, 1788. 
Baskerville v. Harris, 1149. 
Basket v. Hassell, 24, 24a, 25, 26. 
Baskin v. Crews, 1788. 

V. Wayne, 1411. 
Baskins v. Valdosta Bank & Trust Co., 

Bass V. Clive, 535. 

V. Columbus, 1560. 

V. Glover, 17336. 

V. Inhabitants of Wellesley, 205. 

V. O'Brien, 303, 411. 

V. Sanborn, 80. 
Bassenhorst v. Wilby, 610, 611, 612, 

Basset v. Garthwaitc, 800a. 

V. Hains, 497a. 
Bassett v. Avery, 726a, 803. 
Bastian v. Drey or, 194. 
Batavian Bank v. McDonald, 1312. 
Batchelder v. White, 1384. 
Batchellor v. Priest, 576. 
Bateman v. Joseph, 460, 1114. 

V. Kingston, 224. 

t;. Mid-Wales R. Co., 380. 
Bates t'. Butler, 663a. 

V. Cain, 1227. 

V. First Nat. Bank, 1612. 

V. Forcht, 369. 

V. Kemp, 725, 725a. 

V. Kempton, 1181a. 

V. New York Ins. Co., 1708(i. 

V. Rosekrans, 1266a. 

V. Todd, 1729, 1729a. 
Bates County v. Winters, 1523a. 
Batesville Bank v. Lehner, 775, 814, 

Bath County v. Amy, 1523. 
Bathe v. Taylor, 1375, 1377, 1401. 
Batley v. Carswell, 291. 
Batterton v. Roopea, 971, 1277a. 
Battle I'. Weems, 726. 
Battles V. Laudenslager, 819. 
Baugh V. Ramsey, 81 
Baum V. Palmer, 180. 
Baumeister v. Kuntz, 714, 714a, 971, 

1093, 1094, 1103. 
Baumgardner v. Reeves, 1118. 
Bausmann v. Kelley, 574. 
Bauzer v. Richter, 156. 
Baxendale v. Bennett, 842a, 1405. 
Baxter v. Duren, 731b, 735. 

V. Earl of Portsmouth, 212. 

V. Ellis, 814. 

V. Graves, 1084. 

V. Little, 724, 725, 1233, 1437. 

V. Stewart, 60. 
Baxter Nat. Bank v. Talbot, 899. 
Bay V. Coddington, 831c. 
V. Freazer, 73. 

Bayard v. Shunk, 737, 1269, 1662, 1677, 

1678. v. Marbut, 654. 
Bayley v. Greanleaf, 1281. 

V. Heald, 920. 

V. Taber, 85, 197, 807. 
Bayley, Admr., v. Chubb, 1027. 
BayUes v. Peterson, 443a. 
Bays V. Connor, 358a. 
Beach v. Brown, 867. 

V. Moser, 341. 

V. Nevins, 81&. 

V. Wakefield, 1221. 
Beacon Trust Co. v. Robbins 189, 790, 

V. Souther, 386, 394a. 
Beadier v. McEbath, 195a. 
Beal V. Nat. Bank, 340e. 
Beale v. Parrish, 987, 1058a. 
Beall V. Hudson County Water Co., 

V. Leverett, 785. 
Bealfl V. Lewis, 1266. 

V. Peck, 979, 999a, 1000. 

V. See, 210, 685. 
Beaman v. Ward, 573. 
Beaman's Admr. v. Russell, 1421a. 
Bean v. Arnold, 1099. 

V. Briggs, 891, 1703. 

V. Brown, 1251. 

«;. Keen, 1478. 

V. Pioneer Mining Co., 307. 
Beard v. First Nat. Bank, 741. 

V. Dedolph, 741, 745. 

V. Root, 1328, 1.329. 

V. Webb, 250. 

V. Westerman, 1133. 

V. White, 81. 
Bearden v. Moses, 174a. 
Beardslee v. Horton, 797. 
Beardslcy v. Baldwin, 41. 

V. Cook, 509. 

V. Hawes et al., 1787. 

V. Hill, 86a. 

V. Warner, 1304, 1305, 1339. 
Bearman v. Board Police, 422. 
Beattie v. Nat. Bank, 672, 1225. 
Beatty v. Western College, 46, 51a, 

180, 188a. 
Beatty ville Bank v. Roberts, 80, 156, 

Beaty v. Grim, 1763. 
Beauchamp v. Cash, 978. 
Beaumont v. Reeve, 195. 
Beauregard v. Knowlton, 1596. 
Beaver v. Beaver, 24, 1612&. 
Beaver County v. Armstrong, 1489, 

1491a, 1500, 15096, 1513. 
Bechtel's Appeal, 1404. 
I Beck V. Haas, 1215, 12S1, 1252. 



References are to paragraphs marked § 

Beck V. Mailer, 812, 819. 

v.Robley, 1239, 1240, 1241. 

V. Thompson, 616, 1148. 
Becker f. Fischer, 1343. 

V. Hallgiulen, 1730. 

V. Hart, 761,777, 1227. 

V. Horowitz, 612. 
Beckerdike v. Bollman, 1074. 
Bookford v. First Nat. Bank, 1590. 
Beckham v. Hague, 1181a. 
Beckhaus v. Commercial Bank, 827, 

Beckstrom v. Krone, 51a, 104, 1245. 
Beckwith v. Angell, 713c. 

t'. Corrall, 772, 1462, 1463. 

V. P^arnum, 738. 

V. Mace, 363. 

V. Smith, 1028. 

V. Webber, 769a. 
Becnel v. Tournillon, 1024. 
Bedell v. Hering, 849. 

V. Scarlett, 305. 
Bedford v. Deakin, 1300, 1328, 1395, 

V. Hickman, 1034. 
Bedford Bank v. Acoam, 326a. 
Bedford Com. Ins. Co. v. Covell, 305. 
Bedford's Ex'r v. Chandler, 185. 
Beebe v. Brooks, 611, 996. 

V. Hutton, 122. 

V. Wells, 185. 
Beecher v. Dunlap, 80, 81. 
Beeching v. Gower, 648, 5679a. 
Beeker v. Saunders, 1788. 
Beeler v. Frost, 1093. 

V. Young, 226. 
Beem v. Farrell, 1354. 
Beeman v. Duck, 538, 1351, 1354, 

1365, 1366. 
Beer v. Clifton, 611. 
Beers v. Phoenix Glass Co., 382. 
Beeson v. Lipman, 1198. 

V. Shively, 1181a. 
Begbi V. Levi, 494. 
Begley v. Combs, 81. 
Beh V. Bay, 1310. 
Behrens v. McKenzie, 210. 
Being v. Bank of Kingston, 161. 
Beirne v. Dunlap, 55. 
Beissner, Admr., v. Weeks, 713a, 995. 
Beland v. Brewing Assn., 851. 
Belcher v. Smith, 1782. 
Belden v. Burke, 769a. 
V. Carter, 68. 
V. Hann, 693, 694. 
V. Lamb, 751, 758a, 766, 1058. 
Belderback v. Burlingame, 161. 
Belger v. Dinsmore, 1740a. 
Belknap ?'. Davis, 533. 
V. Nat. Bank, 1347. 

Bell V. Alexander, 1587, 1589, 1596, 

V. Bean, 832a. 

V. Beller, 389, 391, 394. 

V. Bruen, 1755. 

V. Buckley, 1369. 

I'. Cafferty, 731. 

V. Campbell, 1205. 

V. Dagg, 672, 731, 7316, 732, 740a. 

V. Farmville R. Co., 1559, 1.560. 

V. First Nat. Bank, 454, 614, 633. 

V. Hagerstown Bank, 1012, 1023. 

V. Hall's Exrs., 1060. 

V. Kellar, 249. 

t;. Lord Ingestre, 721. 

V. Mahin, 1387. 

t'. Morrison, 374, 1215a. 

V. Moss, 1727. 

V. Norwood, 1206. 

«;. Packard, 868. 

V. Pitman, 1289a. 

V. Riddell, 196a. 

I'. San Francisco Savings Union, 

V. Sheridan, 193. 

V. State Bank, 1015. 

V. Tilden, 1192b. 

V. Waudby, 322. 

V. Young, 1470. 
Bellamy v. Majoribanks, 1571a, 1585a, 

Bellasis v. Hester, 492, 624, 626. 
Belle V. Bidgood, 79. 

V. Bruen, 879. 
Bellemire v. Bank of the United States, 

341, 343. 
Belleville Bank v. Bomeman, 68a, 1267. 
Belleville Savings Bank v. Bomman, 

Bellinger v. Brockway, 1091. 
Bellis V. Lyons, 812. 
Bellows V. Lovell, 1311. 
Bellows Falls Bank v. Rutland County, 

1703, 1707, 1707a. 
Belmont v. Hoge, 775. 
Belmont Branch Bank v. Hoge, 769a, 

Beloit V. Morgan, 1560. 
Belote V. Wynne, 374. 
Beltzhoover v. Blackstock, 775, 779a, 

Beman v. Wessels, 67. 
Bemis v. McKenzie, 996. 
Benard v. Barry, 891. 
Bend v. Wietze, 7956. 
Bender v. Bahr Trucking Co., 714. 

V. Been, 1289. 
V. Blessing, 374. 
Benecke v. Haebler, 1799. 
Benedict v. Caffee, 1135, 1172. 



References are to paragraphs marked § 

Benedict v. Cowden, 149, 152, 153, 
1397, 1407. 

V. Cox, 1332, 1338. 

V. Miner, 319, 1377. 

V. Olson, 1326. 

V. Schmieg, 594, 1005. 

V. Smith, 321. 
Benham v. Bishop, 231, 234. 

V. Smith, 418. 
Benhap f . Bishop, 234. 
Benjamin v. Arnold, 1338. 

V. McConnell, 1290. 

V. Rogers, 339, 790. 

V. Ver Nooy, 816. 
Benn v. Kutzschan, 62, 669. 
Bennell i-. Wilder, 1251. 
Benners v. Clements, 916. 
Bennett v. Bennett, 242. 

V. Farnell, 137. 

V. Lubv, 177. 

t;, Taylor, 1311. 

V. Young, 966. 
Bennett'8 Estate v. Taylor, 1458. 
Bennett Shoe Co., In re, 382. 
Bennitt v. Mo. Pacific R. Co., 1741. 
Benoin v. Paquin, 798. 
Benson v. Abbott, 664a. 

t^. Adams, 1209. 

t;. Carmel, 432. 

V. Drake, 70. 

V. Dublin Warehouae Co., 195a, 

i;. Keller, 193. 

V. Mayor, 1523. 
Benthall v. Judkins, 715, 1757. 
Bentnick v. Dorrien, 549. 
Benton i-. Ger.-Am. Nat. Bank, 757, 
802, 830, 867. 

t'. Gibson, 611. 

V. Martin, 68a, 816, 722, 1173. 

V. Marvin, 1101. 

V. Roberts, 358a. 

V. Sikyta, 199a, 214, 776, 832a. 
Berdsell i;. Russell, 1399, 1499a. 
Bereich v. Marj-e, 1708^^. 
Berenson v. London & Lancashire Fire 

Ins. Co., 47. 
Berge v. .\bbott, 1118. 
Bergmann v. Salmon, 177, 789. 
Berkley f. Cannon, 213. 

V. Tinsley, 190, 757, 832a. 

f. Wat ling, 1729. 
Berkling v. Watling, 1727. 
Berkshire Bank v. Jones, 656, 657, 

Berliner v. Town of Waterloo, 1535. 
Bernard v. Barrj', 891. 

t;. Union Trust Co., 50a. 
Bernard, .\dmr., v. \VTiitney Bank, 


Bemd v. Lynes, 1306, 1789. 
Bemey v. Steiner Bros., 698<i, II8I0 
Bemheimer v. Herrmann, 1623. 

V. Marshall. 1361. 
Berridge v. Banks, 248. 

V. Fitzgerald, 1016. 
Berrien v. Wright, 922. 
Berry i'. Berry, 857, 858. 

V. Bridges, 1276. 

V. Griffin, 1267, 1268. 

V. Pullen, 1316, 1317. 

V. Robinson, 611, 996. 

t'. Southern Bank, 1060. 
Berry man v. M anker, 1387. 
Bertig-Smythe Co. v. Bonsack Lumber 

Co., 81c. 
Bertrand v. Barkman, 184, 831a. 
Besant v. Cross, 517. 
Besshears v. Rowe, 568. 
Best V. Crall, 822, 824, 1228. 

V. Hoppie, 713a. 

V. Krey, 296. 

V. Nakomis Nat. Bank, 1198. 

t'. Rocky Mountain Nat. Bank, 
164, llSla. 
Bethune v. McCrary, 181. 
Bcttanier v. Smith, 780. 
Betterton v. Roope, 828, 1276. 
Bettis V. Bristol, 274. 

V. Schreiber, 960, 1050. 
Betts f. Kimpton, 256. 
Bevan v. Atlanta Nat. Bank, 1219. 

r. Eldridge, 122. 
Beveridge v. Richmond, 546, 1326, 

Bibbf. Peyton, 1165. 
Bibbs I'. Hitchcock, 196a. 
Bick V. Clarke, 28. 
Bickerdike v. BoUman, 1170, 1074. 
Bickford i-. First Nat. Bank, 1626. 

V. Gibbs, 1759, 1588. 

V. Mattocks, 181. 
Bickley v. Conmiercial Bank, 1700, 

Bicknall v. Waterman, 738. 
Biddeford Nat. Bank v. Hill, 193, 1347. 

V. McAllister, 851. 
Biegler v. The Merchants' Loan & 

Trust Co., 108, 797. 
Bier>' v, Haines, 1391. 
Bigbie v. Levy, 69, 70. 
Bigelow t', Benedict, 195a. 

t'. Benton, 1755. 

V. Bumham, 877, 922, 923. 

V. Colton, 707a, 715. 

V. Grannis, 233. 

V. Henniger, 802. 

V.Stephen, 1373a, 1411. 
Bigelow Co. V. Automatic Gas Pro- 
ducer Co., 184. 



References are to paragraphs marked § 

Biggerstaff v. Marston, 1233. 
Biggs V. Merrill, 781. 

V. Piper, 83. 
Bigler v. Waller, 1248. 
Bignold, Ex parte, 1109. 
Big Rapids Nat. Bank v. Peters, 1322. 
Big Sandy Nat. Bank v. Chilton, 

Bilbie v. Lumley, 1148. 
Bill V. Stewart, 815. 
Billgerry i'. Branch, 217, 218, 669, 

678a, 1060, 1062, 1067, 1070, 1071. 
Billing t). Collins, 781. 

V. Devaux, 25, 491, 498, 499, 503, 
Billings V. Billings, 80. 
Billings' Estate, In re, lOoSa. 
Billingsley v. Benefield, 1266. 

t'. Clelland, 196a, 741, 742. 
Billington v. Wagoner, 1317. 
Bilson V. Hodd, 975. 
Binford v. Adams, 1221, 1222. 

V. Binford, 730, 1221. 
Bing t'. Bank of Kingston, 188a. 
Bingham v. Noyes, 247. 

V. Reddy, 1373a. 

V. Stanley, 177. 

V. Stewart, 305. 
Binney v. Globe Nat. Bank, 93, 142, 

V. Plumley, 63, 65, 1187. 
Birch V. Fisher, 1702a, 1703. 
Birchard i-. Bartlett, 705. 
Birckhead i'. Brown, 1797a. 
Bircleback v. Wilkins, 162. 
Bird V. Brown, 318. 

V. Daggett, 386. 

V. Kay, 1085. 

V. Le Blanc, 1091, 1195a. 

V. Louisiana State Bank, 327. 
Birdsall v. Russell, 775. 

V. WTieeler, 808. 
Birkett v. Elward, 831a. 
Birmingham Nat. Bank v. Bradley, 

1363, 1369, 1662. 
Birmingham Trust & Sav. Co. v. Curry, 

V. Whitney, 1390, 1402. 
Bisbee v. Torinus, 203. 
Bisbing v. Graham, 1473. 
Bishop V. Chase, 574, 690, 7266. 

V. Corning, 16126. 

V. Dexter, 611, 996. 

V. Dillard, 80. 

V. Eaton, 1312, 1321, 1753. 

V. Hay ward, 1202a. 

V. Matney, 196a. 

V. People's Bank, 357. 

V. Rowe, 130, 301, 548, 748a, 1266, 

Bishop V. Seaman's Bank for Savings, 

V. Yeazle, 1304. 
Bishop's Estate v. Bank's Appeal, 1312. 
Bissell V. Adams, 1215a. 

V. Campbell, 1729a. 

V. City of Kankakee, 1550, 1544, 

V. Dickerson, 757, 758a, 790. 

V. First Nat. Bank, 392. 

V. Gowdy, 725a, 726a. 

V. Jcffersonville, 317, 389, 1537, 
1540, 1564, 1799. 

V. Lewis, 561, 587. 

t'. Morgan, 814a. 
Bissinger v. Guiteman, 816. 
Bitzer v. Utica Lime Co., 177. 

V. Wager, 1191. 
Bixby V. Deemar, 1741. 
Bizzell V. Stone, 1432. 
Black t'. Duncan, 63. 

V. Epstein, 149, 177. 

t'. First Nat. Bank, 156, 396, 789, 
790, 7956, 805, 831a. 

V. Holland, 1215. 

V. Peele, 543. 

I'. Rav, 382. 

V. Strickland, 1198. 

V. Tarbell, 726. 

V. Ward, 56, 58. 

V. Zacharic, 1272, 1208€. 
Blackbume, Ex parte, 1262, 1264. 
Blacker v. Dunbar, 93. 
Blacker & Co. t^. Ryan, 614. 
Blackham v. Doren, 1075, 1076. 
Blackie i'. Bidding, 1464, 1482. 
Blackman v. Green, 663. 

V. Lehman, 41, 99, 420, 663a, 1500, 
Blackmore v. Granbery, 1252. 
Black River Sav. Bank v. Edwards, 

Blackstone Bank v. Hill, 1251, 1319. 
Blackwell v. Denic, 123. 

V. Hamilton, 34. 
Blade v. Grant County Dep. Bank, 

V. Noland, 1482. 
Blaffer v. Louisiana Nat. Bank, 1622a. 
Blain v. Hitch, 196a. 
Blaine v. Bourne, 336, 698. 
Blair v. Bank, 392. 

V. Bank of Mansfield, 687, 1187. 

V. Bank of Tennessee, 643, 1303, 

V. Carpenter, 1251. 
V. Hagemeyer, 791. 
Blair & Hoge v. Wilson, 1064, 1065, 

1572, 1587, 1590, 1623. 
Blairsville Nat. Bank v. Crabbs, 831a. 



References are to paragraphs marked § 

Blaisdell Jr. Co. v. Citizens' Nat. Bank, 

Blake v. Coleman, 151, 1396. 
V. McMillen, 594, 996. 
V. Third Nat. Bank, 359. 
Blakeley v. Adams, 1342. 
Blakely v. Grant, 664o, 1017, 1782. 

V. Johnson, 1373a. 
lilukemore v. Wood, 80. 
Hhikcslee t-. Hewitt, 325, 704, 713e. 
Hlukey v. Johnson, 1373a, 1405. 
Blanc I'. Gerraania Nat. Bank, 392a, 
V. Mutual Nat. Bank, 327, 329, 
1006, 1099, 1108. 
Blanchard v. Blanchard, 1339. 
V. KauU, 405, 406. 
V. Page, 1727. 
V. Stevens, 830, 831o. 
I- Tittavawasse Boom Co., 1276. 
V. Wood, 1099. 
Blanckenhagen i'. Blundell, 103. 
Blund V. O'lIaRan, 148. 
BliindinK v. Burr, 1556. 

V. Wilsey, 1789. 
Blaney v. Pelton, 812. 
Blanckenship v. Rogers, 1429, 1080, 

Blanks f. Ripley, 203. 
Blankshan i'. Russell, 187a, 188. 
Bla.sdell f. Locke, 246. 
Blatchford v. Harris, 189, 929, 1095a, 
V. Milliken, 716. 
Blazer t'. Baudy, 1317a. 
Blazo t'. Cochrane, 181. 
Bleaden r. Chitrlcs, 1468a. 
Bleckley v. Goodwin, 196a. 
Blenderman r. Price, 1085. 
Blenn v. Lvford, 726. 
Blessard r. Hurst, 1154, 1158. 
Blesse v. Blackburn, 741. 
Blethen v. Lovering, 670. 
Blevins v. Fairley, 93. 
Blinn Lumber Co. v. McArthur, 1227. 
Bliss V. Covington, 1473. 

V. Houghton, 890. 
Block r. Bell, 131. 

V. Wilkcrson, 497. 
Blodgett V. .\merican Nat. Bank, 369a. 
t'. Durgin, 879, 880, 908. 
V. Jackson, 139. 
Blood V. Maveuse, 392a. 

t;. Northrup, 45, 1703. 
Bloom V. Helm, 365. 

r. Warder, 1769. 
Bloomington School v. Nat. School 

Furnishing Co., 422. 
Blossom V. Dodd, 1711. 
Blount t'. Bcstland, 257. 

Blount V. Edison Gen. Elec. Co., 205. 

I'. Windley, 1689. 
Blow I'. Mavnard, 1342. 
Blum V. Bidwell, 1149. 

V. Loggin, 802, 812. 
Blumenthal v. Jassoy, 834. 
Blum, Jr. 'a Sons v. Whipple, 386. 
Blythe v. Cordingly, 183. 
Boalt V. Brown, 1385. 
Boardman v. Paige, 1294. 

I'. Smith, 1432. 
Board of Commissioners v. JEina. Life 
Ins. Co., 1537. 
V. National Life Ins. Co., 1537. 
V. Tollman, 1526. 
Board of Comrs. of Lake Co. v. Sutliff, 

Board of Education v. Fonda, 1260, 

Board of Missions v. Mechanic Sav. 

Bank, 24, 16126. 
Board of Sunervisors v. Hall, 1188. 
Boatman's Sav. Bank v. Grewe, 834. 
t'. Johnson, 1310. 
!'. West Atl. R. Co., 17336. 
Boatman's Sav. Inst. v. Mead, 365. 

V. Bank of Mo., 1686. 
Bobe V. Stickney, 1251, 1252. 
Bobo V. Hansel, 231. 
Bock I'. Gorrisseau, 3346. 

I'. Lauman, 751. 
Bockville Nat. Bank i-. Citizens' Gas 

Light Co., 388. 
Boddington v. Schlencker, 332, 1590. 
Bodley v. Higgin.s, 67. 

I'. National Bank, 803. 
Boehm t'. Garcias, 507a. 

V. Sterling, 725a, 1567, 1595, 1634. 
Boeka r. Nuella, 741. 
Boemer v. Traders' Nat. Bank, 759a. 
Bogart V. M'Clurg, 1150, 1164. 
Bogarth r. Breedlove, 1386. 
Bogerau f. Gueringer, 370a. 
Bogert V. Hertell, 266, 268. 
Boggess V. Goff, 1251. 

t'. Lilly, 200. 
Bogie V. Nolan, 164. 
Bogy V. Keil, 1083, 1172. . 

Bohart Commission Co. v. Bucking- 
ham, 698<i. 
Bohn V. Building & Loan Assn., 383. 
Bohons, A.ssignee, v. Brown, 197, 199a. 
Boissat t'. Sullivan, 170. 
Boit I', ^^^litehead, 805. 
Bolen V. Wright, 815. 
Boles V. Harding, 141, 769a, 1219. 
Bolin, Matter of, 16126. 
Boline v. Wilson, 1181a. 
Bolitho, Ex parte, 363, 364. 
BoUes V. Perry Co., 1551. 



References are to paragraphs marked § 

Bolt V. Dawkins, 1259. 
Bolte V. Sparks, 199a. 
Bolton V. Dugdale, 53. 

V. Harrod, 470. 
Bonanza Mining & Smelter Co. v. 

Ware, 393. 
Bonbonus, Ex parte, 365, 366. 
Bond V. Bragg, 968. 

V. Farnham, 1128, 1131, 1137, 

V. Fitzpatrick, 1437. 
V. Kidd, 177. 
V. Storrs, 1229. 
V. Vandergrift, 80. 
V. Warden, 1592. 
V. Whitfield, 1472. 
Bond, Admr., v. HoUoway, 701a. 
Bondot V. Rogers, 803. 
Bonds-Foster Lumber Co, v. Northern 

Pac. R. Co., 1731. 
Bondurant v. Everett, 1015. 
Bone V. Tharp, 825. 
Bonedon v. Page, 898. 
Bonesteel v. Bowie, 1266b. 
Boneton v. Welsh, 982, 983. 
Bonham v. Needles, 1537. 
Bonman v. Van Kuren, 7956. 
Bonnell v. Prince, 1319, 1325. 

V. Mawha, 506. 
Bonner v. City of New Orleana, 14996, 
i;. Nelson, 854. 
Boody V. Lincoln Nat. Bank, lQV2(i. 
Booher v. Allen, 724a. 
Booker v. Robbins, 200. 
Bookheim v. Alexander, 183a, 831c. 
Bool V. Mix, 229. 
Boom V. City of Utica, 1538. 
Boomer v. Koon, 1375. 
Boon V. Murphy, 1281. 
Boone v. Boone, 1966. 
Boord V. M. Ferst's Sena & Co., 292. 
Booth V. Dexter Fire Engine Co., 161. 
t;. Grove, 287. 
V. Huff, 94, 7136. 
V. Powers, 1395, 1410a, 1411. 
V. Quin, 3696, 375, 803. 
V. Smith, 1267, 1276. 
V. Storrs, 1202. 
V. Wallace, 86a. 
Boozer v. Anderson, 62. 
Borden v. Clark, 700, 797. 
Borgess Investment Co. v. Vett, 775. 
Borneman v. Sidlinger, 24. 
Borough V. Perkins, 926. 

V. White, 608. 
Borough of Montvale v. People's Bank, 

776, 1501. 
Borradaile v. Lowe, 1091, 1163. 
Borroughs v. Ploof, 832. 

Borst. V. Spclman, 255. 

Borup ('. fs'iningor, 329, 347. 

Bo.san(juet v. Dudman, 183a. 

Bosch V. Ciussing, 787a. 

Boss V. Hewitt, 724a, 787, 1506. 

Bossangc v. Ross, 751. 

Bosswell V. Thigpen, 833. 

Boston Bank v. Hodges. 658, 1212. 

Boston Safe Deposit & Trust Co. v. 

Manning, 1181a. 
Boston Steel & Iron Co. v. Steucr, 

144, 805, 832. 
Bostwick V. Dodge, 832. 
Boswell V. Citizens' Sav. Bank, 1566, 

Boteler v. Dexter, 710, 995, 1473. 
Bothell V. Fletcher & Stobaugh, 156, 
769a, 789. 

t;. Schweitzer, 1409. 

V. Whitley Brothers, 812, 814. 
Bothwell V. Corum, 27, 776, 777. 
Botsford V. In.surancc Co., 1741. 
Bottomley v. Brooke, 1431. 

V. Fisher, 402. 
Bottomly i'. Goldsmith, 198, 808. 
Bouchell V. Clary, 224, 225. 
Boughncr v. Meyer, 195a, 1503. 
Boughton V. Flint, 1707a. 
Bouler v. Mayor, 1322. 
Boultbee v. Stubbs, 1322. 
Boulton V. Welsh, 983. 
Boulware v. Newton, 170, 1534. 
Bourgh V. Leggc, 1047. 
Bourke v. Spaight, 673. 
Bourne v. Ward, 162, 163. 
Boutelle v. Carpenter, 1398. 
Bouton V. Cameron, 189. 

t'. Hill, 203, 1215. 
Bovard v. Dickinson, 812, 11926. 
Bovier v. McCarthy, 807. 
Bowen v. Bradley, 868. 

V. Byrne, 122. 

V. E. A. Waxelbaum, 81, 177. 

V. Julius, 1234. 

V. Laird, 1405. 

V. Needles Nat. Bank, 386. 

V. Newell, 622, 634, 908, 1568, 
1571a, 1572, 1573, 1574, 1576. 

V. Stoddard, 295, 1450. 

V. Van Gundy, ^1623. 
Bower v. Hastings, 726. 

V. Hoffman, 1701. 
Bowerbank v. Monteiro, 79, 517. 
Bowers v. Dierker, 1376. 

V. Evans, 340e. 

V. Hurd, 179. 

V. Jewell, 1401, 1403. 

V. Rineard, 1377. 

V. Still, 1301. 

V. Thomas, 849. 



References are to paragraphs marked § 

Bowery Bank v. Gerety, 1238, 1321. 

Bowes V. Howe, 1172. 

Bowie I'. Duvall, 576, 1197, 1229. 

V. Hall, 62. 

t;. Hume, 149, 150, 152, 999a, 
Bowker v. Childs, 1289a. 

V. Haight & Freese Co., 1643. 
Bowles V. Elmore, 1293. 

V. Lambert, 100. 
Bowlin V. Creel, 1352a. • 
Bowling I'. Arthur, 341, 343. 

t;. Chambers, 1339. 

V. Harrison, 1005, 1007, 1013. 
Bowlley v. Kline, 383. 
Bowman v. First Nat. Bank, 334. 

t;. Hiller, 675, 858. 

V. McChesney, 88, 89, 604. 

V. Metzgcr, 777, 795b. 

V. Neely, 1513, 1514. 

V. Xichol, 1401. 

t'. St. Louis Times, 1227. 

I'. Van Kurcn, 824, 825a, 830. 

V. Wood, llSIu, 1192. 
Bowser v. Spiesshofcr, 815. 
Bowyer t'. Bampton, 673. 
Boyce v. Edwards, 551, 559, 560, 561, 
896, 917, 1797a, 1799. 

V. Geyer, 799. 

V. Tubb, 169. 172, 173. 
Boyd I'. Hunk of Toledo, 1103, 1104, 

V. Brothcrson, 1404. 

V. City Sav. Bank, 1005. 

V. Cleveland, 1093. 

r. Cochrane, 196, 1316. 

V. Corbitt, 1192, 1193. 

V. Cummings, 831c. 

I'. Emerson, 1621. 

V. Hitchcock, 1265, 1267. 

t'. Johnson, 263. 

i'. McCann, 174a, 803. 

V. Mclvor, 815. 

V. Na.smith, 1601a. 

V. Orton, 999a. 

V. Parker, 834a. 

V. Plumb, 365. 

V. Vanderkemp, 802. 
Boyd's Admrs. v. City Sav. Bank, 591, 

972, 1000, 1011. 
Boydell v. Harkness, 519, 642. 
Boyer v. Boogher, 713a. 

V. Chandler, 1506. 
Boykin v. Bank, 3406, 340J, 698J. 

r. Bank of Mobile, 76, 793a. 
Boylan v. Huguet, 1708a. 
Boyle V. Skinner, 363. 
Boylston Nat. Bank v. Richards, 1369. 
Boyman v. McChesney, 89. 
Boynton v. Pierce, 7i3c. 

Bozeman v. Rushing, 1966. 
Brabrook i-. Boston, 24a, 246. 
Brabston v. Gibson, 895. 
Bracken v. Griffen, 1534. 
Brackett v. Mountfort, 1392. 
Bracton i-. Willing, 532. 
Bradburg, In re, 188. 
Bradbury v. Davenport, 68. 

V. Van Pelt, 1221. 
Braden v. Lemnon, 1221. 
Bradford t-. Corey, 708a, 1099. 

V. Fox, 1617, 1623. 

!'. Prescott, 713a. 
Bradford & Carson v. Montgomery 

Furniture Co., 203. 
Bradford Nat. Bank v. Taylor, 142, 

694, 1376. 
Bradlaugh v. De Rin, 867, 906. 
Hradlee v. Boston Glass Co., 298, 300, 

Bradley v. Anderson, 81. 

V. Andrus, 1587. 

V. Ballard, 423. 

«■. Brown, 714, 719. 

V. Bush, 720a, 1290. 

V. Carey, 17856. 

V. Cassels, 700. 

V. Davis, 979, 1003, 1019. 

V. Delaplane, 1572. 

f. Harrington, 1574. 

V. Hunt, 24, 1672. 

r. Lill, 54. 

I'. Mann, 1373a. 

t'. Marshall, 726a. 

V. Northern Bank, 588, 945, 947, 

V. Phelps, 713c. 

V. Pratt, 224, 226. 

V. Root, 23. 
Bradley Engineering, etc., Co., v. 

Heyburn, 386, 790. 
Bradshaw v. Iledge, 962. 

V. Van Valkenburg, 197. 
Bradwell v. Pryor, 775. 
Brady v. Brady, 1227, 13.35, 1340. 

V. Chandler, 36a. 

V. The Major, 318. 

V. White, 1198. 
Brage v. Netter, 1290. 
Bragg V. Greenleaf, 1197. 
Braham v. Bubb, 41. 

V. First Nat. Bank of Clarksville, 
Braid v. Cochran, 366. 
Brailsford v. Williams, 988, 990, 992, 

Brainard v. Cappella, 186. 

«;. Davis, 831a. 

V. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. Co., 1487, 



References are to paragraphs marked § 

Brainard v. Reavis, 724a. 
Braithwait v. Gardner, 535. 
Braker v. The Gloaming, 1741. 
Braley v. Buchanan, 9956. 
Braly v. Henry, 789. 
Braman v. Hawk, 1317. 

V. Hess, 7G0, 766. 
Bramhall v. Beckett, 831a. 

V. Van Campen, 69. 
Branch v. Commissioners, 838. 

V. Howard, 174. 

V. National Bank, 339, 698(/. 
Bran(!h Bank v. Gafifrey, 996. 

V. James, 1338. 

V. Knox, 331. 

V. Pierce, 1031. 

V. Tillman, 1484. 
Branch of State Bank v. McLeran, 592. 
Brancroft v. Halle, 1033. 
Brum las v. Barnett, 3346. 
Brandenstein v. Ebensberger, 183. 
Brandler v. Bradley, 1321. 
Brandon v. Scott, 354. 
Brandt v. Bowlby, 17346. 

V. Krank, 185. 

V. Mickle, 1135. 
Brandt Mercantile Co. v. Lang, 1181a. 
Brannin v. Henderson, 512. 
Brannock v. Magoon, 174, 748a. 
Brannons v. Irons, 1312. 
Brannum Lumber Co. v. Pickard, 1377. 
Brant v. Barnett, 67a, 1294. 
Brantley Co. v. Lee, 1260. 
Bratton v. Lowery, 248. 
Brauer v. Campania, etc., Co., 1739. 
Braxton t'. Braxton, 803, 804. 
Bray v. Bray, 1227. 

V. Hadwen, 1043, 1044. 

V. Manson, 1305. 

V. Marsh, 1099. 
Braynard v. Fisher, 1436. 

V. Marshall, 875, 881, 917. 
Brazleton v. McMurray, 132. 
Breckinridge v. Lewis, 775, 843, 844. 
Breckenridge v. Ralls, 56. 
Breed v. Cook, 1262, 1264. 

V. Hillhouse, 1786. 
Brefogle v. Beckley, 1458. 
Breitengross v. Farr, 189. 
Breitung v. Lindauer, 1260. 
Breneman v. Furness, 717, 720a, 722. 

V. Mayer, 775, 800. 
Brengle v. Bushey, 1328. 
Brennan v. Brennan, 1191, 1200. 

V. Carl, Vogt & Son, 627. 

V. Merchants' Bank, 1230, 1636. 

V. Vogt & Son, 627, 945. 
Brenneke v. Smallman, 1317. 
Brent v. Bank of Washington, 1708c. 

V. Ervin, 1478, 1481. 

Brent r. Miller, 305, 1731. 

Brent's Exrs. v. Bank of Metropolis, 

635, 639. 
Bresee v. Crumpton, 51a, 729. 

v. Stanly, 231. 
Bresthcnthal v. Williams, 35. 
Brett V. Marston, 1780. 
Brevoort t'. Huglios, 203. 
Brewer t'. Atkeison, 834. 

I'. Bowersox, 680. 

V. Boynton, 719. 

r. Brewer, 36a. 
Brewing Ass'n v. Klett, 201. 
Brewing Co. v. Manaseo, 834. 
Brewster v. Arnold, 983. 

I'. Baker, 183, 185. 

V. Burnett, 1372a. 

V. Doane, 1057. 

V. Hobart, 277. 

t'. McCardel, 85, 630. 

V. Shradcr, 831a. 

V. Silence, 1767, 1779. 

V. Sime, 1730. 

V. Syracuse, 1556. 

V. Wakefield, 1458a. 

V. Williams, 49. 
Brewton r. Spire, 1537. 
Breyfogle v. Addison, 726. 
Bricket v. Spalding, 649. 
Brickley v. Edwards, 93. 
Bricleback v. Wilkins, 162. 
Bridge v. Bachelder, 736, 1269. 
Bridge Co. v. Savings Bank, 1277a. 
Bridgeford v. Masonville Co., 1478. 
Bridgeport v. Housatonic R. Co., 1523. 
Bridgeport Bank v. Dyer, 465. 

r. N. Y. R. Co., 1708(7. 
Bridgeport City Bank v. Empire 

Stone Dressing Co., 386. 
Bridges v. Berry, 548, 971. 

V. Hawkesworth, 1674. 
Briel v. Exchange Nat. Bank, 418. 
Briggs I'. Boyd, 792, 1190. 

V. Briggs, 1429. 

V. Cent. Nat. Bank, 333. 

V. Downing, 67a. 

V. Ewart, 851. 

V. Hervey, 1051. 

V. Holmes, 1623. 

V. Latham, 867, 868, 876. 

V. Norris, 13176. 
Brigham v. Peters, 299. 

V. Potter, 204. 
Bright V. Judson, 896. 
Brighton Market Bank v. Philbrick, 

Brill V. Crick, 153, 154. 

V. Hoile, 1260. 

V. Tuttle, 16a, 50. 
Brill Co. V. Norton, etc., St. R. Co., 386. 



References «u"e to paragraphs marked 

Brim v. Fleming, 1385. 
Brindley i^. Barr, 1012. 
Bringman v. Von Glahn, 164. 
Brink v. Stratton, 205. 
Brinkley v. Bovd, 713d, 716. 

V. Going, 576, 1227, 1229. 
Brinkman v. Hunter, 496, 560, 561. 
Briscoe v. Bank of Kentucky, 1715, 

V. Huff, 1215. 

V. Kenealy, 1458a. 
Bri.sendine v. Nlartin, 1339. 
Bristol V. Sprague, 3696, 371, 375. 

V. Warner, 161. 
Brifltol Knife Co. v. First Nat. Bank, 

Bristow V. Sequeville, 914. 
British & .\merican Mtg. Co. v. Bates, 

British & American Mortgage Co. v. 
Smith, 782. 

V. TibbalLs 1625. 
British Columbia Mill Co. v. Neatle- 

ship, 1733. 
British Linen Co. v. Drummond, 884. 
Britt V. Lawson, 594. 
Brittain v. .\nderson, 800a. 

V. Murphy, 1147. 
Britain Dry Goods Co. v. Yearout, 

Brittan v. Bank, 843. 
Britton v. Bishop, 724, 725. 

V. Dierkcr, 1376. 

V. Nicholls, 341, 640. 
Britton & Koontz v. Harvey Co., 834z. 
Broadfoot v. Fayetteville, 1491a. 
Broadway Sav. Bank r. Shumacker, 

1306', 1310. 
Broadway Sav. Inst. t'. Town of Pel- 
ham, 436, 440, 1520, 1533, 1540, 

1542, 1552. 
Broadway Trust Co. v. Manheim, 769a. 
Hrobston v. Penniman, 802. 
Hrocchus v. Morgan, 336. 
Brock I'. Thompvson, 766. 
Brockwav v. .\llen, 403. 

I'. Am. Ex. Co., 867. 

V. Comparree, 704. 

V. Gadsden Klineral Land Co., 

fri3, 1215. 
t'. Reynolds, 68. 
Broderick v. Andrews, 202. 
Brogess Investment Co. v. Vett, 775. 
Bromage v. Llovd, 64, 267. 
Brombridge v. Osborne, 1228. 
Bromley v. Com. Nat. Bank, 1620. 

V. Hawley, 185, 775. 
Bromwick i'. Lloyd, 6. 
Bronaugh v. Scott, 1304. 
Bronson v. Alexander, 713<i. 

Bronson t;. Rhodes, 1247. 
Bronston's Adm'r v. Lakes, 164. 
Brook V. Hook, 1352a. 

V. Latimer, 81a. 

V. Smith, 1421. 

i;. Teague, 193, 770, 789, 810, 815. 

V. Vannest, 831a, 899. 
Brooke i-. N. Y. & L. E. R. Co., 1733a. 

V. Struthers, 156, 835. 
Brooke, Recr., r. Tradesman's Nat. 

Bank, 1642. 
Brookline Nat. Bank v. Moers, 739a. 
Brooklyn Trust Co. v. Toler, 135, 1608. 
Brookman v. Metcalf, 833, 1495. 
Brooknard v. Woodley, 1219. 
Brooks V. Bigelow, 333. 

V. Boyd, 1458. 

f. Day, 965. 

V. Elgin, 1277. 

r. Hanover Nat. Bank, 1714. 

V. Hargreaves, 41. 

r. Hatch, Itia. 

r. Hey, 791, 793. 

f. Higby, 635. 

V. Holt, 573, 812. 

V. James, 573, 812. 

V. Martin, 200, 859. 

V. Mitchell, 606, 608. 

V. Owen, 179. 

V. Stackpole, 709. 

V. Stuart, 1294. 

V. Sullivan, 831a. 

V. Wage, 183. 

t^. White, 1289a. 
Brophy Grocer>' Co. v. Wilson, 783. 
Brotherton v. Street, 688c. 
Broughton r. Fuller, 1.390, 1401. 

V. M. & S. Water Works, 377, 380. 

V. West, 1390. 
Brougton Bros. v. Summer, 366. 
Brouwer f. Appleby, 395. 
Brower v. Carpenter, 13176. 

r. Peabody, 1750a. 
Brown Ex parte, 680. 

Matter of, io80, 1617a, 1620, 1638, 

V. Ambler, 550. 
r. Baker, 303. 

r. Bank of Abingdon, 1014. 
t'. Barber, 62. 
r. Barrv', 930. 
V. Brown, 1181a. 
V. Butchers' Bank, 74, 688a. 
V. Butler, 715. 
V. Callaway, 832a. 
V. Chancellor, 617. 
V. Citizens' State Bank, 68. 
V. Citv of Newburyport, 420. 
V. Claxk, 373. 



References are to paragraphs marked § 

Brown v. Cow Creek Sheep Co., 1646, 

V. Crofton, 970, 1085. 
V. Croy, 1306. 
V. Curtis, 1763, 1779, 1786. 
V. Darrah, 728. 
V. Davies, 1505. 
V. De Winton, 130. 
V. Dickinson, 684, 701a. 
V. Donnell, 290. 
V. Dunbar, 986. 
«;. Foldwert, 769a, 1398. 
V. Ferguson, 9, 972, 995a, 1045, 

V. Finley, 194. 
t>. First Nat. Bank, 1, 859, 1311, 

t;. Fisher, 663. 

V. Flocrsheim Mercantile Co., 1731. 
V. Fowler, 1326. 
V. Gardner, 923. 
V. Gates, 865. 

V. Gilman, 102, 1274, 1281. 
V. Harraden, 616, 617. 
V. Hoffelmeyer, 796, 850. 
V. Hull, 81, 90a, 644, 669, 724, 

728, 1095, 1095a. 
V. Ingalls Tp., 1537. 
V. Jackson, 698. 
V. James, 205, 7816. 
V. Johnson Bros., 161, 164, 1181a. 
V. Jones, 644, 936, 979, 1385. 
V. Jordhal, 32. 
V. Kinsey, 195. 
V. Kirk, 1316. 
V. Lacy, 1251. 
V. Ladd, 183. 
V. Langley, 81. 
V. Leavitt, 183a, 831c, 832. 
V. Leckie, 1626, 1627, 1628, 1637. 
V. Lusk, 1569, 1595. 
V. Maffey, 1077, 1083. 
V. Mechanics & Traders' Bank, 

V. M'Dermott, 588. 
V. Melrose, 422a. 
V. Messiter, 1473, 1475. 
V. Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co., 1729. 
V. Montgomery, 1269. 
V. Mott, 181, 726, 766. 
V. Olmsted, 1260. 
V. Parker, 294, 304. 
V. Penfield, 11926. 
V. People's Bank, 671. 
V. Pergain, 199a. 
V. Phillpot, 166. 
V. Powell, 1729a. 
V. Reed, 1405, 1409. 
V. Roberts, 203. 
V. Rouse, 273, 279. 

Brown v. Schintz, 1590. 

V. Shelby, 1260. 

V. Smedley, 81«, 189, 724a. 

V. Spofford, 80, 81, 719, 769a, 812. 

V. Spohr, 184. 

V. Straw, 1376, 1395. 

V. Summers, 730. 

I'. Taylor, 575. 

I'. Todrell, 210. 

V. Turner, 592, 725a, 999. 

V. Van Bruum, 1438. 

V. Vosson, 4,5a, 53. 

V. Ward, 833. 

V. Weldon, 176, 203. 

V. Whittington, 1223. 

V. Wilcox, 674. 

V. Wiley, 80. 

V. Wilson, 316, 928. 

V. Wintcrjiort, 422a. 
Brown Carriage Co. v. Dowd, 189. 
Browne r. Cuit, 513. 

V. Fidelity & Deposi^ Co., 680. 
Brownell v. Bonney, 1047. 

V. Winnie, 13SS. 
Browning v. Kinnear, 1117, 1120. 

V. Merritt, 7l3d. 

V. Porter, 1343. 
Brownlec v. .\rnold, 835. 
Brown's Admr. r. Garland, 1433. 
Brown's Rstate, In re, 1417. 
Bruce i'. Bruce, 672. 

V. Burr, 739a. 

V. Lord, 412. 

V. Lytic, 1104, 1144, 1157. 

V. Wescott, 1395. 

I'. Wright, 717, 722. 
Bruck I'. Smith, 673. 
Brueggestradt v. Ludwig, 177. 
Bruen v. Marquand, 1321. 
Brumah v. Roberts, 358a. 
Brumback v. German Nat. Bank, 854. 
Brummagin v. Tallant, 1703, 1707. 
Brummel v. Enders, 145, 146, 175, 

Brunsen v. Napier, 1135. 
Bnmswick v. Boutelle, 305. 
Brush V. Barrett, 1596. 

V. Reeves, 663a. 

V. Scribner, 775, 832. 
Brust V. Barrett, 1589. 
Brutt V. Piccard, 1403. 
Bruyn v. Receiver, 1691. 

V. Russell, 163, 164. 
Bryam t'. Hunter, 1162. 
Bryan v. Berry, 276. 

V. Duflf, 81c. 

V. Primm, 725a. 

V. Wilcox, 1104. 

V. Windsor, 717. 
Bryans v. Nix, 1733. 

References are to paragraphs marked § 


Bryant v. Christie, 194. 

V. Damariscotta Bank, 1685. 
V. Edson, 634, 908. 
V. La Banque, 280. 

V. Lord, 1092. ^ 

V. Merchants' Bank, 1092, 1094. 
V. Vix, 834. 
Bryden v. Taylor, 945. 
Brynjolfson v. Osthus, 573. 
Bryon i'. Carter, 1708d. 
Bryson v. Lucjia, 305, 307. 
Buchanan v. Drovers' Nat. Bank, JOU, 
V. Findley, 790. 
V. Kimcs, 1281'^. 
1-. Litchfield, 1537, 1538. 
V. Marshall, 1096. 
t;. Sav., 371a, 372, 832, 832a. 
V. Wren, 775, 795b, 797, 812. 
Bucher V. Jarratt, 1483. 
Buck V. Bank of State of Ga., 1312, 
V. Harri.s, 54, 54a. 
V. Kent, 1227, 1483. 
V. Merrick, 407. 
V. StefTey, 201, 1312. 
V. Troy Aqueduct Co., 241, 388, 

V. Wood, 205. 835a, 1351, 1352. 
Buckalew v. Smith, 1316. ^ ^ ^ , 
Buckeye Saw Mfg. Co. v. Rutherford, 

Buckhouse v. Selden, 880. 
Buckinfcham's .Vppeal, 24a. 
Bucklen V. Hubl), 1397. 

V. lIutT, 1373a. 
Buckley V. Beardsley, 1764. 
V. Bri^.-^, 382, 384. 
Ex parte, 1613. 
V. Jackson, 6986. 
V. Seymour, 583. 
Buckner v. Finley, 9. 
V. Jones, 775. 
V. Lee, 357, 363. 
r. Savre, IS. 
Buehler v. McCormick, 729. 
Bucttner i'. Stcinbrecher & Hertzler, 

S-'i". ^59. ,^. . XT * 

Buffalo German Ins. Co. v. Third Nat. 

Bank, 1708a, 1708f. 
Buffalo Nat. Bank v. Sharpe, 249. 
Buffington v. Curtb^, 1743. 
Buffum V. Chadwick, 415. 
Buggf. Holt, 204. 
Bugh V. Crum, 1317. 
Buhrman v. BaylL>^, 832. 
Building .\ v. Lt>eds, 710. 
Bulger V. Gleason, 13526. 

V. Roche, 884. 
Bulkley v. Butler, 142. 

Bull V. Bank of Kasson, 56, 67, 611, 
783, 1248, 1567, 1570, 1587, 
1590, 1595a, 1634. 
V. Latimer, 1190. 
V. Mitchell, 1227. 
V. Read, 1557. 
V. Sims, 429, 433. 
Bullard v. Bell, lOa, 1672, 1683. 
i^. Randall, 1611a, 1636. 
1-. Smith, 62, 164, 183. 
V. Thompson, 877, 923. 
I'. Wilson, 1056. 
BuUer v. Crips, 5, 6, 32. 

t;. Heane, 1711. 
BuUett t;. Bank of Penna., 1478, 14/9, 

Bullfin V. Clarke, 247. 
Bullock r. Lloyd, 1205. 

V. Taylor, 62. 
Bumm V. Commercial Bank, 1319. 
Bumpa^s v. Taggart, 122, 126. 

V. Timms, 65. 
Bunch f. Fluvanna Co., 1531, 1555a. 
Bundrant v. Boyce, 156. 
Bundv I'. Jack.son, 139. 

V. Town of Monticello, 1612a. 
Bunker v. Barron, 1260. 
t;. Langs, 669, 1221. 
V. O.sborn, 703, 7();ia. 
Bunn V. Commercial Bank, 1319. 

V. Grav, 196. 
Bunney r. Voyntz, 1279a, 1280. 
Bunting v. Camden R. Co., 1500. 

V. Mick, 819. 
Bunzell V. Maafl & Schwarz, 770, ni, 

790, 814. 
Burbank v. Beach, 951. 

V. Posey, 403. 
Burbridge v. Manners, 1036, 1037, 

1233, 1235, 123.5a. 
Burch V. Daniel, llSla, 1395. 

V. Tebbutt, 1252. 
Burchard v. Frazer, 1267. 
Burchell i'. Slocock, 104. 
Burchett v. Fink, 181, 780. 
Burchfield v. Moore, 1378, 1379. 
Burden v. Southerland, 148. 
Burdick v. Green, 1260. 
Burge V. Dishman, 81. 

t;. Duden, 1339. 

Burgess v. Chapin, 738. 

V. Dewey, 1317. 

V. Merrill, 238. 

i; Northern Bank of Kentucky, 

t;. Vreeland, 983, 985, 1039 1041. 
Burgettstown Nat. Bank v. Hill, 1147. 
Burgh V. Legge, 1107. 
Burgin v. Smith, 422. 
Burhana i'. Hutcheson, 8346. 


References are to paragraphs marked § 

Rurk V. Gray, 1281. 
Burke v. Allen, 682. 

V. Bishop, 24, 26, 16186. 

V. Buck, 807. 

V. Dulaney, 68a, Slo. 

V. McKay, 586, 926, 928, 934a, 

V. Napier, 174. 

V. Utah Nat. Bank, 503, 509. 
V. Wilbur, 365. 
Burkhaltcr v. Perry & Brown, 303, 305. 
Burkhain v. Trowbridge, 983. 
Burkhaus v. Ilutcheson, 834. 
Burkhokler v. Farmers' Bank, 203. 
Burleigh v. Stott, 12156. 
Burlingame v. Brewster, 403, 1399. 

V. Foster, 1024. 
Burlington Township v. Beasley, 1522. 
Burmesterr. Barron, 1023, 1029a, 1030. 

V. Hogarth, (jij'.ia. 
Burnett t'. Ilawpe, 249. 
Burney v. Ball, 24/*. 
Burnham v. Allen, 86a, 164. 
V. Barth, 340(', 1612a. 
V. Gosnell, 17.57. 
V. Merchants' Bank, 831c. 
V. Webster, 1096, 1099. 
V. Wood, 728. 

V. W. S. McCormick, etc., 605. 
Burnham-Hanna-Munger Dry Goods 

Co. V. Carter, 241. 
Burnley v. Tufts, 52. 
Burns v. Kahn, 1578, 1651. 
ti. Moore, 69. 
V. Scott, 80, 174a. 
I'. True, 1230, 1233. 
V. Weesner, 203, 204. 
V. Yocum, 1091, 1590. 
Burr V. Smith, 1222. 
Burrall v. Bushwick R. Co., 1708g. 
Burrill v. Grossman, 1738. 
V. Parsons, 769a. 
V. Smith, 674 675, 1112, 1113. 
Burroughs i'. Bank of Charlotte, 1683. 
V. Moss, 254, 686, 1184, 1430, 

V. Ploof, 832. 

V. Tradesman's Nat. Bank, 1642. 
Burrow v. Zapp, 1788. 
Burrows i'. Hanegan, 1135, 1180. 
V. Jemimo, 872. 
V. Keays, 748a. 
V. Million, 1480. 
V. State, 1623. 

V. Western Union Tel. Co., 1663. 
Burrus v. Cook, 1342. 

V. Davis, 185, 1316. 
Burson v. Huntington, 122, 838. 
Burt V. Horner, 1769a. 
V. Walker, 112. 

Burton v. Bridgeport, 24. 
V. Brooks, 57. 
r. Curyoa, 1748. 
t'. Dewey, 1769. 
V. Payne, 1483, 1649. 
.;. Slaughter, 264, 1223, 1342. 
Burton's Appeal, 1708ff. 
Bury t'. Woods, 3346. 
Buse V. First State Bank, 1233. 
Bush V. Abraham, 1623. 
V. Baldrey, 1249. 
t;. Brandecker, 1227. 
V. Brown, 857. 

V. Export Storage Co., 1713a. 
t'. Foote, 16a. 
V. Groomes, 7956. 
t'. Litchfield, 1543a. 
V. Livingston, 760. 
V. Peckard, 832. 
Bushnell v. Kennedy, 10a, 729. 

V. Loomis, 177. 
Bushong t'. Taylor, 271. 
Bushworth v. Moore, 903. 
Bussard v. Levering, 627, 1005, 1021, 

1043, 1051. 
Bussy V. Whitaker, 112. 
Butcher v. Carlisle, 55. 
V. Churchill, 1342. 
Butler V. Carns, 849. 
V. Dubois, 444. 

r. Dunham, 1523, 1524, 1536a. 
V. Duval, 992, 995a. 
V. Gambs, 1311. 
V. Horwitz, 1247. 
V. Jovce, 1484. 
V. Kimball, 1210. 
V. Mitchell, 725, 1436. 
V. Munson, 725a. 
V. Paine, 56. 
V. Prentiss, 567. 
t'. Stocking, 367. 
f. Webb, 1057. 
Butterfield t^. Davenport, 90, 857. 

V. Town of Ont., 803. 
Buttler V. Play, 939. 
Button V. Belding, 83. 

V. Trader, 800a. 
Buttrick Lumber Co. v. Collins, 51. 
Butts V. Dean, 1267. 
Buxton V. Jones, 590. 
Buzzell V. Tobin, 7816, 838. 
Buzzini & Co., In re, 970, 1090. 
Byars v. Doore, 306. 
Byers v. Harris, 314, 1316. 

V. The Bellamy Price Inv. Co., 

V. Trich, 713a, 1417. 
Bynum v. Apperson, 1060, 1070, 1118, 
V. Hobbs, 576. 



References are to paragraphs marked § 

BjTium V. Rogers, 764. 
Byram v. Hunter, 1162. 
Byrd v. Campbell Printing Press Mfg. 
Co., 203. 

V. Holloway, 263. 
Byrd Printing Co. v. Whitaker Paper 

Co., 1566. 
Byrom v. Thompson, 1395. 

Cabbell i-. Knote, 834. 
Cabot Bank v. Morton, 731, 7316, 740a, 

V. Russell, 1024. 

V. Warner, 1003, 1005. 
Cadillac v. Sav. Bank, 1531, 1537. 
Cadwalader v. Hartley, 800a. 
Cadwallader v. Hirehfield, 710. 
Cady t;. Bradsluuv, 1103, 1106. 

t^. Nat. Bank, 326c. 

V. Shepard, TOO, 704, 713d. 
Cagle V. Lane, Mo, 769a. 
Cahal t'. Kriirsoii, 704. 
Cahill Iron Worka r. Pemberton, 1759, 

Cahn V. Pochetts, etc., Co., 1734a, 

Cahokia School Trustees v. Rauten- 

burg, 443a. 
Cahoun i-. Moore, 265. 
Cairo I'. Zane, 1497, 1513, 1537. 
Cake V. Pott.sville Bank, 719. 
Calder v. Provan, 187a. 
Calderon v. Atlas Steamship Co., 

Caldwell V. Ball, 1737. 

V. Ca.sHiday, 643, 645, 1685. 

V. Diinuskes, 725. 

V. Evan.s, 326. 

V. Hall, 812, 1260. 

V. Hurley, 1340. 

V. LawTvnce, 1181a. 

V. Niush, 241. 
Calendar Sav. Bank r. Loos, 857. 
Calfee v. Burge.s^s, 170. 
Calhoun i-. Albin, 727. 

V. Calhoun, 172. 

V. Davis, 81. 
CaUfomia Nat. Bank v. Ginty, 205, 
12.50, 1316. 

I'. Weldon, 1586. 
Callahan v. Crow, 67, 68a, 181, 777, 

V. Kentucky Bank, 669a, 1002, 
Callanan v. Williams, 643. 
Callawav Count v v. Foster, 1524. 
Callendar v. Callender, 179. 

V. Kirkpatrick, 1387. 

CallLster, Matter of, 1623. 

Callow V. LawTence, 1198, 1237, 1241, 

Calvert v. Williams, 207. 
Calvert Bank v. J. Katz & Co., 357. 
Calvin v. Free, 181. 

V. Sterrett, 205, 741. 
Camas Prairie State Bank v. Newman, 

366, 1641, 1646. 
Cambidge v. AUenby, 452. 
Camden v. Doremus, 661, 1769a. 

V. M'Coy, 707a, 710, 713c, 1757. 

V. Mulen, 250. 
Cameron v. Thompkins, 182. 
Camidge i-. Allenby, 7316, 736, 740, 

1262, 1264, 1078, 1679, 1679a. 
Cammer v. Harrison, 617, 1211. 
Camp V. Bates, 1048. 

V. First Nat. Bank, 1199. 

V. First Nat. Bank of Ocala, 713a. 

V. Knox County, 427. 

V. Rundle, 918. 

t;. Southern Banking Co., 3696. 

V. Sturdevant, 805. 
Campbell r. Alfonl, 1731. 

V. Allen, 1222. 

t;. Baldwin, 1281. 

V. Brown, 758c. 

V. Butler, 713<i. 

V. Collins, 1226. 

t'. Equitable Securities Co., 43, 
1227, 1230. 

V. Fourth Nat. Bank, 812, 819, 
831a, S.32. 

V. P>ench, 610, 932. 

V. Hanney, 1623. 

V. Hodgson, 81. 

V. Hoff, 815. 

V. Huffines, 366. 

V. Hughes, 1338, 

V. Humphreys, 1229. 

V. Jones, 197, 198, 199. 

t'. Kenosha, 1523, 1525, 1560, 

I'. Knapp, 1759. 

V. McCormack, 164. 

V. MLss. Union Bank, 1671. 

V. Morgan, 1342. 

V. Nichols, 861, 868, 917. 

t;. Patton, 166. 

V. Pettengill, 513, 1077, 1082. 

t'. Robins, 719. 

r. Sloan, 207. 

V. Tate, 1338. 

V. Upshaw, 80. 

V. Webster, 1158. 

V. Weister, 56. 

I'. Wilcox, 124, 125. 
Campbell, etc., Mfg. Co. v. Reoder, 

834, 1221. 


References are to paragraphs marked § 

Campbell Press Co. v. Jones, 1458. 
Campion v. Colvin, 1729. 
Camp's Appeal, 24, 24a. 
Can V. Read, 1615. 
Canaan v. Bryce, 200. 
Canadian Bank of Commerce v. John J. 
Sesnon Co., 832a. 

V. Northwood, 1322. 
Canadian, etc., Mortgage & Tr. Co. v. 

Keyser. 145Sa. 
Canady, Gillium & Key v. Webb, 161. 
Canajoharie Nat. Bank i'. Diefendorf, 

775, 779, 815, 819. 
Canal Bank v. Bank of Albany, 349a, 

533, 538, 1361, 1362, 1364, 1372, 

Canham v. Piano Mfg. Co., 203. 
Cannun v. Bryce, 200. 

V. Farmer, 243. 
Canney v. Corey, 176. 
Cannon v. Canfield, 779a. 

V. Gibbs, 1787. 

V. Grigsby, 1401. 

V. Lindsay, 849a. 

V. Moore, 777, 850. 
Canon v. Farmers' Bank of Cook, 775, 

Canterbury i'. Bank of Sparta, 67. 
Canton, etc., Assn. v. Weber, 1198. 
Cape Fear Bank v. Steinmetz, 960. 
Caphart v. Dodd, 406. 
Capital City Brick Co. v. Jackson, 795c. 
Capital City Ins. Co. v. Quinn, 632, 

Capital Co. v. Merriam, 1221. 
Capital Nat. Bank v. Am. Exchange 
Bank, 627. 

V. Robinson, 1221. 
Capital Sav. Bank & Trust Co. v. 
Montpelier Sav. Bank & 
Trust Co., 775, 815. 

V. Swan, 407. 
Capp V. Lancaster, 1685. 
Capps V. Gorham, 725a. 
Capron v. Capron, 43. 
Capwell V. Machon, 724, 1222. 
Caras v. Thalmann, 879. 
Card V. Miller, 1387, 1388. 
Cardell v. McNeil, 739a, 1763. 
Cardwell v. Allen, 995, 1090, 1151. 
Caren v. Liebovitz, 203. 
Carey v. Green, 1694. 

V. McDougal, 1703. 

V. Miller, 849a. 
Cariss v. Tattersall, 1395, 1401, 1402. 
Carlisle v. Chambers, 902. 
V. Hill, 753. 
V. Hooks, 514. 
V. Wishart, 832. 
Carlisle Deposit Bank v. Rheem, 1037. 

Carlon v. Kenealy, 48. 
Carlton v. Bailey, 204, 783. 

V. Ireland, 1585a. 

t'. Reed, 1378. 

V. Smith, 724a, 741, 1227. 

I'. White, 571. 

V. Woods, 204. 
Carlton Steamship Co. v. Castle, etc., 

Co., 1738. 
Carman v. Garrison, 1431. 
Carmichael v. Bank of Penn., 454, 462, 

Camahan v. Lloyd, 573, 812. 
Came v. Brigham, 382. 
Carnegie v. Morrison, 560, 897. 
Camer v. Cameron, 369. 
Carnwright v. Gray, 46, 162, 163. 
Carolina Locust Pin & Mica Co. v. 

Chattanooga Machinery Co., 576. 
Carolina Nat. Bank v. Wallace, 1000, 

1003, 1013, 1175. 
Carolina Sav. Bank v. Florence To- 
bacco Co., 710. 
Carpenter i'. Farnsworth, 103. 

t;. Hoadley, 832. 

V. Longan, 834, 834a. 

V. McClure, 194. 

V. McLaughlin, 716, 1215a. 

V. Murphee, 1290. 

V. National Bank of the Republic, 

t'. Northborough Nat. Bank, 1369, 

t'. Oaks, 713a. 

V. Page, 186. 

V. Reynolds, 1095a. 

t'. Snelling, 122. 

V. Thompson, 1753, 1760, 1779. 
Carr v. Eastabroke, 1286. 

V. Howard, 1339. 

t;. Jones, 81c, 1227. 

V. LeFevre, 1496. 1509. 

V. Nat. Sec. Bank, 1606a, 1636. 

V. Rowland, 7136. 

V. Shaw, 903. 
Carraway v. Odenhall, 1317b. 
Carrie v. Child, 112. 
Carrington v. T\rmer, 1221. 

V. Waff, 81a, 81c. 
Carrol f;. Peters, 726. 
Carroll v. Bank, 3345, 336. 

V. Hayward, 775. 

V. Hutchinson, 80. 

V. Nodine, 700. 

V. Sweet, 1587, 1590, 1596. 

V. Warren, 1395. 

t;. Weld, 713c. 
Carroll Bank v. First Nat. Bank, 1643. 
Carrollton Bank v. Tayleur, 550, 560. 
Carroway t>. Odeneal, 1289. 



References are to paragraphs marked § 

Carruth v. Walker, 664. 
Carruthers v. West, 726, 786. 
Carson v. Bank of Alabama, 1015. 

V. Bank of State, 1056. 

V. Porter, 815. 

V. Russell, 454, 481. 
Carson, Pirie, Scott & Co. v. Fincher, 

328a, 1587, 1596. 
Carstairs, Ex parte, 1322. 

V. Rolleston, 1334. 
Cartan & Jeffrey v. Wm. Thackberry 

Co., 1623. 
Carter v. Bradley, 979a, 980. 

V. Brown, 581. 

V. Burley, 9, 10-53, 928, 945, 946, 
947, 1039, 1045. 

t;. Dickson, 248. 

V. Flower, 465, 475, 1047, 1083, 
1084, 1113a, 1170. 

V. Grecnhow, 448. 

V. Hamilton, 81. 

V. Long, 1297. 

V. Martin, 1612a. 

V. Mitchell, 359. 

V. Moulton, 67. 

V. Odom, 185, 793a, 971. 1005. 

V. Penn, 56. 

V. Saunders, 262, 263. 

V. Sprague, 693, 1147. 

t'. Steele, 357. 

V. The Mascotte, 1742. 

V. Thomas, 262. 

V. Union Bunk, 9, 586, 657, 909, 
926, 936, 1023. 

t'. Whalley, 369a. 

V. Zenblin, 1290. 
Carter-Battle Grocer Co. v. Clarke, 

Carthage Nat. Bank f. Butterbaugh, 

CartwTight v. Williams, 664a, 1335a. 

I'. Wilmerding, 1731a, 1734a, 1747, 
1750, 1750a. 
Caruthers v. West, 786. 
Carver v. Forrey, 1227. 

V. Hayes, 38. 

V. Steele, 1326. 
Carvick v. Vicker>', 684. 
Carville v. Crane, 569. 
Carv V. White, 1328. 
CasDorne v. Button, 39. 
Casco Bank i'. Keene, 1351, 1352a. 
Casco Nat. Bank v. Clark, 262. 

V. Shaw, 1022, 1054. 
Case V. Beyer, 68a. 

V. Burt, 492. 

V. Espenschied, 242, 254. 

V. Henderson, 1637. 

V. Hawkins, 1311. 

V. Morris, 1586. 

Case t'. Smith, 196. 

V. Spaulding, 720a. 
Case Threshing Mach. Co. v. Barnes, 

V. Hall, 795&. 

V. Peterson, 1417. 
Cash t;. Kennon, 916, 1454. 

V. Taylor, 297. 
Cashman v. Harrison, 80, 81a, 1073, 

V. Haynes, 53. 
Cason t;. Grant County Deposit Bank, 

Cass I'. Dillon, 1524. 
Cass County t;. Gillett, 800a, 1524, 

V. Johnson, 1535a. 
Cass County Bank v. Bricker, 196a. 
Cas-sebeer v. Kalbfleisch, 752. 
Cassel V. Dows, 550, 560, 561. 

I'. Regierer, 1037. 
Cassidy r. First Nat. Bank, 1703. 

V. Krearaer, 1033. 
Castle V. Belfast Foundry Co., 400. 

f. Com E.xch. Bank, 339, 344. 

V. Ix)gan, 156. 

V. Rickley, 1257, 1754. 
Casto V. Evinger, 1181a, 1373, 1398. 
Castor V. Peterson, 93, 227, 242. 
Castrique t;. Battigieg, 717. 

V. Bernabo, 1212. 
Gate V. Patterson, 1702, 1703, 1707. 
Gates V. Thaver, 1312, 1319. 
Cathcart v. Gibson, 1147. 
Catlin r. Gunter, 751. 
Caton I'. I^nox, 5. 

V. Shaw, 1785b. 
Gator, In re, 1311. 
Catskill Bank v. Stall, 368, 488. 
Catterlin r. Lusk, 193, 203. 
Gatton V. Simpson, 1387. 
Cattron v. First Univerealist Society, 

381, 387. 
Caudle v. Ford, 81ft. 
Caulkins r. Whisler, 845, 846. 
Gaunt t-. Thompson, 972, 985, 1087, 

Causey v. Snow, 606, 812. 
Gavallaro v. Texas & Pacific Ry. Co., 

1728, 1750. 
Cavaness v. Ross, 1289. 
Cavazos v. Trevins, 712. 
Gavenah v. Somerville, 725a. 
Gaverick v. Vickery, 701a. 
Caviness v. Rushton, 36. 
Gawein v. Browinski, 1590. 
Cayuga Bank v. Daniels, 17346. 

V. Warden, 979. 
Cayuga County Bank v. Bennett, 

V. Dill, 1106, 1107. 



References are to paragraphs marked § 

Cayuga County Bank «-. Hunt, 464a, 

592, 593, 602, 787a, 940, 951, 1038. 

V. Warden, 978, 979a, 980. 
Cayuga Nat. Bank v. Dunkin, 713a. 

V. Purdy, 62. 
Cazet V. Field, 199. 

V. Kirk, 54a. 
Cecil V. Hicks, 1458a. 

V. Mix, 713. 
Cecil Bank v. Farmers' Bank, 336. 

V. Heald, 831a, 1652. 
Cedar County v. Jenal, 1245. 
Cedar Falls Co. v. Wallace, 1075. 
Cedar Rapids Bank v. Hendrie, 183. 
Cedar Rapids Nat. Bank v. Beckham, 

V. Mottle, 1405. 

V. Myhre Bros., "815. 

V. Rhodes, 850. 
Cellers v. Meachem, 1312. 
Centourier v. Hastie, 314. 
Central Bank, Ex parte, 369a. 

i>. Allen, 615, 1119, 1145. 

t;. Davis, 694, 1109. 

V. Hammett, 78b, 753a, 769a, 7816. 

V. Theim, 326a, 1425. 
Central Banking & Trust Co. v. Pusey, 

Central City Bank v. Rice, 664a. 
Central Investment Co. r. Miles, 1769. 
Central Nat. Bank v. Adams, 1115. 

V. Charlottesville, 32a. 

t;. Connecticut Mut. Ins. Co., 
1612a, 1638. 

V. Cooper, 879. 

V. Copp, 205, 316. 

V. Frye, 365. 

V. North River Bank, 1652. 

V. Pipkin, 796. 

V. Stoddard, 643, 1051. 
Central Nat. Bank of Brooklyn v. 

Hammett, 812. 
Central R. Co. v. First Nat. Bank of 

Lynchburg, 336. 
Central Sav. Bank v. Mead, 365. 

t'. O'Connor, 81, 203. 

V. Richards, 496, 551a. 

V. Shine, 1785&. 
Central Trust Co. v. Burton, 751, 895. 

V. N. Y. Equipment Co., 156, 834, 
Central Univ. of Ky. v. Walters' Ex'rs, 

Chaddock v. Van Ness, 710, 715, 717, 

720a, 721, 1093. 
Chadsey v. McCreery, 415. 
Chadwell, Admr., v. Chadwell, 74. 
Chadwick v. Allen, 99, 102. 

V. Eastman, 1414. 

V. Kirkman, 819. 

Chadwick v. Menard, 1317. 
Chaffee t-. Middlesex R. Co., 1490a. 
Chafoin v. Rich, 643. 
Challi-sr. McCrum, 670, 731, 733. 
Challoner i'. Boyington, 71, 1264. 
Challmers v. Lanier, 803. 

V. Lanion, 726^1. 

V. McMurdo, 703, 704. 
Chamberlain v. Gorham, 163. 

V. Hewson, 243. 

I'. McClurp, 1352/;. 

I. Pacific W. G. Co., 403. 

v. Townsend, 862. 

t'. Walker, 354. 

V. Young, 27. 
Chamberlain Bkg. House v. Noble, 845 

V. Woolsey, 1266. 
Chamberlin v. White, 1289a. 
Chambers v. Custer County, 1590. 

f. Davidson, 1279a. 

V. George, 1245. 

V. Hill, 466, 472. 

V. Hubbard & Co., 1713. 
Chambers County i-. Clews, 1503. 
Champion v. Gordon, 1569, 1573, 1574, 

Champion Funding & Foundry Co. v. 

Heskett, 193. 
Chandler v. Calvert, 54, 55, 59. 

V. Carev, 41. 

V. Glover, 233. 

V. Johnson, 196a, 204. 

V. Kennedy, 62. 

V. Mason, 1113. 

V. Parkes, 238. 

V. Westfall, 7136. 
Chandler & Taylor Co. v. Norwood, 

713a, 715. 
Chanoine v. Fowler, 946, 988, 992. 
Chanter v. Hopkins, 733a. 
Chapek v. Oak Creek Valley Bank, 356. 
Chapell V. Sppencer, 1388. 
Chapeze v. Young, 710, 1338a. 
Chapin v. Vt. & Mass. R. Co., 1500. 
Chaplin v. SulUvan, 1424. 
Chapman v. Annett, 1158. 

V. Black, 206, 760. 

V. Chapman, 80. 

V. Commonwealth, 1250, 1251. 

V. Cotterell, 870. 

V. Cowles, 1245. 

V. Durant, 1260. 

V. Foster, 249. 

V. Keen, 987, 990. 

V. Lipscombe, 1115. 

V. Niantic Nat. Bank, 1229. 

t;. Ogden, 183, 777, 1050. 

V. Remington, 797. 

V. Robertson, 879, 922, 923. 

V. Robinson, 894. 



References are to paragraphs marked § 

Chapman t;. Rose, 672, 848, 850, 851a. 

V. Steiner, 59. 

V. Wager, 1310. 

V. Wagner, 326. 

V. White, 1636. 

V. Wright, 41. 
Chappalear v. Martin, 1230. 
Chappell V. McKoough, 1222, 1341. 
Chappin v. Taylor, 448. 
Chappie V. Durston, 1214. 
Chariton Plow Co. v. Davidson, 805. 
Charles v. Blackwell, 1571a. 

V. Denis, 719. 

V. Marsden, 724, 726, 754, 786, 

V. Remick, 371. 
Charleston v. Gann, 1312. 
Charleston Sav. Inst. v. Farmers' & 

Merchants' Bank, 790, 1202. 
Charlotte v. Shepard, 1522. 
Charlston v. Reed, 42. 
Charlton v. Reed, 43, 44. 
Charnley v. Dallas, 1703, 1705. 
Charnock v. Jones, 1223. 
Chartres r. Caimes, 895. 
Chase !'. Alexander, 16a. 

V. Belirman, 51a. 

V. Brundage, 1300, 1701. 

t;. Dow, 917. 

V. Redding, 24, 26. 

V. Tavlor, 959. 

V. Whitemore, 62, 724a, 170Sff. 
Chase Nat. Bank v. Faurot, 32a, 284, 
1.500, 1501. 

t'. Meholin, 1454. 
Chaters v. Bell, 939, 940, 1196. 
Chatfield i-. Pa.\ton, 1148. 
Chattahoochee Nat. Bank v. Schley, 

Chattanooga Grocery Co. v. Livingston, 

161, 534. 
Chaudron v. Hunt, 1478. 
Chaumette r. Bank of England, 1383. 
Chautauqua County Bank v. Davis, 

Cheek r. Roper, 456. 
Cheer Sav. Bank r. Mowerv, 1734c. 
Cheever i-. P. S. & L. E. R. Co., 81c, 

V. Pitt.sburg R. Co., 791, 795a, 

I'. Schall, 570, 1197a. 
Chelsea Sav. Bank v. Ironwood, 14916. 
Cheltenham Stone Co. v. Gates Iron 

Works, 1260, 1276. 
Chemical Co. v. Lackawanna Line, 

17.34a, 1739. 
Chemical Light Co. v. Howard, 174a. 
Chemical Nat. Bank of New York v. 
Kellogg, 728. 

Chemung Canal Bank v. Supervisors, 

422, 427. 
Chenault v. Bush, 203. 
Cheney v. Bilby, 643. 

V. Cooper, 807. 

V. Janssen, 800a. 

V. Libby, 326. 

V. Stone, 812. 
Chenowith v. Chamberlain, 9, 365, 581, 

Cherry v. First Texas Chemical Mfg. 
Co. 795c. 

V. Sprague, 62*, 713a, 868. 
Cherrv Valley Iron Works v. Florence 

River Iron Co., 1221. 
Chesapeake & Ohio R. Co. v. Paine, 

Chcsborough v. Wright, 831c. 
Cheshire v. Barrett, 230, 234. 

i^. Taylor, 11 48, 1149. 
Cheshire "Provident Inst. t;. Guesner, 

Chesmer v. Noyes, 968. 
Chester v. Day, 1227. 

V. Dorr, 726, 786. 
Chester, etc., R. Co. v. Lickiss, 63. 
Cheater Glass Co. v. Dewey, 1708a. 
Chestertown Bank of Maryland r. 

Walker, 62. 
Chestnut i'. Chestnut, 86, 86a, 143. 
Chestnut St. Trust &c. Fund Co. v. 

Record Pub. Co., 303, 795c. 
Chew I'. Bank of Baltimore, 259. 
Chewing r. Singleton, 1478. 
Chicago r. People, 1514. 
Chicago Cottage Organ Co. i'. Swart- 

zell, 80, 81. 
Chicago &c. R. Co. v. Loewenthal, 834. 
Chicago Heights Lumber Co. v. Miller, 

Chicago Marine Ins. Co. v. People, 

Chicago Marine, etc., Ins. Co. v. 

Stanford, 16.37. 
Chicago R. Co. v. Edson, 814. 

V. Sloan, 1741. 

V. West, 128. 
Chicago Title & Trust Co, t;. Brugger, 

V. Ward, 164. 
Chicago Tr. & Sav. Bank v. Kinnare, 
357, 371. 
V. Nordgren, 713r/. 
Chick V. Pittsburg, 1039, 1041. 
Chicopee Bank v. Chapin, 181, 824, 
831a, 8.32a. 
V. Eager, 1013. 

V. Philadelphia Bank, 67, 656, 657. 
Child t'. Hudson Bay Co., 1708<f. 
Childera v. Boulnois, 36a. 


References are to paragraphs marked § 

Childa V. Laffin, 653. 

V. Monins, 262, 263. 

V. Pellett, 355. 

V. Wyraan, 700a, 713a. 
Chillicothp V. Oronsdorff, 795. 
Chilton V. Whippin, 1205. 
Chipman v. Martin, 1274. 

V. Tucker, 855. 
Chism V. Toomor, 1418, 1420. 
Chism, Churchill & Co. v. Bank, 139, 

Choate v. Kimball, 202. 

V. Stevens, 51a, 52. 
Choisser v. People, 1538. 
Cholmeley v. Darloy, 151. 
Chorm v. Merrill, 713/). 
Chouteau v. Allen, 45a, 282, 316, 779. 

V. Merry, 240, 246. 

t'. Webster, 1025, 1027. 
Chouteau Land & Lumber Co. v. 

Chrisman, 1227. 
Choteau Trust & Banking Co. r. 

Smith, 761, 779b, 1202. 
Chrisman r. Tuttle, 70. 
Christian v. Highlands, 1339. 

V. Keen, 532. 

;;. Miller, 1429. 

V. Parrott, 33. 
Christian County Bank v. Good, 54, 

Christian Feigenspan r. McDonald, 

369, 781&, 815, 969. 
Christie v. Pearlj 491. 
Christina v. Cusimans, 815. 
Christler v. Williams, 1623. 
Christman v. Pearson, 1219. 
Christmas v. Russell, 16a, 23. 
Christopherson r. Common Council, 90. 
Chrysler v. Rendis, 56, 831c. 
Church V. Barlow, 992. 

V. Clapp, 782. 

V. Clark, 601. 

V. Fields, 68a. 

V. Fowle, 1373a, 1393. 

V. Howard, 1386. 

V. Maloy, 1317. 

V. Swope, 95, 532. 
Church's Estate, In re, 1219. 
Churchill v. Bielstein, 815. 

V. Gardiner, 63, 65. 
Churchman v. Martin, 62. 
Chute V. Pattee, 1317a. 
Cicero v. Clifford, 15096. 
Cicotte V. Gagnier, 834. 
Cidne v. Chidester, 44. 
Cilley V. Dearbome, 995. 
Cincinnati R. Co. v. Pontius, 1729a, 

Citizens' Bank v. Adams, 809. 

V. Bank of Waddy, 832a. 

Citizens' Bank v. Burrus, 1339. 
V. Ferry, 748. 

t'. First Nat. Bank, 1590, 1599. 
«;. Fredrickson, 790. 
V. Jones, 717. 
V. Lay, 1210, 1222, 1235. 
t'. Leonhart, 79.5a, 815. 
V. Moorman, 131S. 
Citizens' Banking Co. v. Peacock & 

Carr, 1713a. 
Citizens' Bank of Paris v. Houston, 327. 
Citizens' Bank of Stanton v. Emley, 

Citizens' Bank of Wakita v. Gamett, 

Citizens' & Marine Bank i;. Southern 

Ry. Co., 1740a. 
Citizens' Bank & Trust Co. v. Thornton, 

Citizens' Commercial & Savings Bank 

V. Piatt, 683, 964. 
Citizens' Nat. Bank v. Alexander, 1612. 
V. Berry & Co., 393. 
V. Brown, 1481. 
V. Harter, 1623. 
V. Hooper, 775. 
V. Importers & Traders Nat. Bank, 

V. PioUet, 150. 
V. Richmond, 1413, 1415. 
V. Smith, 850. 

V. Third Nat. Bank, 327, 329, 454, 
V. Walton, 684. 
V. Wilson, 1310. 
V. Wintler, 812. 
Citizens' Nat. Bank of Los Angeles, 

Cal., V. Ariss, 298. 
Citizens' Sav. Assn. v. Perry County, 

1537, 1538. 
Citizens' Savings Bank v. City of 
Newburyport, 680. 
V. Halstead, 1373, 1387. 
t;. Hays, 926, 960, 970, 999. 
V. Houchens, 164. 
V. Michell, 24a. 
V. Newburyport, 420. 
Citizens' State Bank v. Cowles, 7796. 

V. Nore, 198, 807. 
Citizens' State Bank of Lankin v. 

Garceau, 68a. 
Citizens' Trust & Sav, Bank v. Stack- 
house, 769a, 775, 815. 
City V. Alexander, 1523. 

V. Lamson, 1489. 
City Bank v. Cutter, 622, 629, 658, 
1048, 1212. 
V. Dearborn, 3696. 
V. Farmers' Bank, 1680. 
V. McChesney, 3696. 

Table of cases 


References are to paragraphs marked § 

City Bank v. Perkins, 392, 11926. 

V. Taylor, 1230. 
City Bank of Sherman t;. Weiss, 336, 

City Bank's Appeal, 361. 
City Deposit Bank v. Green, 81c, 94, 

203, 7796, 815, 819. 
City Elec. St. Ry. Co. v. First Nat. 

Bank, 394, 790, 1201. 
City Loan & Trust Co. v. Sterner, 1312. 
City Nat. Bank v. Bums, 1596, 1621. 
V. Goodloe McClelland Com. Co., 

t;. Goodrich, 713a. 
V. Jordan, 819. 
V. Kusworm, 177, 857. 
V. Mahan, 1723. 
V. Stout, 1658. 
V. Thomas. 284, 390, 573. 
City Nat. Bank of Columbus, Ohio, v. 

Jordan, 177. 
City Nat. Bank of Dayton, Ohio, v. 

Kusworm, 177. 
City Nat. Bank of Lafayette v. Mason, 

City Nat. Bank of Roanoke v. Hund- 
ley, 776. 
City Sav. Bank v. Hopson, 1094, 1095a, 
V. Reel, 1311. 
Claflin V. Briant, 665. 

t;. Farmers' Bank, 389, 812, 1607, 

1609, 1611. 
V. Wilson, 319, 698, 698<i. 
Claflin Co. i-. Fiebelman, 644, 707a. 
Clapctt V. Salmon, 1322. 
Claiborne Co. i-. Brooke, 420, 421, 422, 

Clair r. Barr, 1172. 
Clanin v. Esterly Harvesting Mach. 

Co., 51a, 68, 150. 
Clanton r. Barnes, 899. 
Clapp V. County of Cedar, 1500, 1524. 

V. Rice, 703, 707, 7076, 1189. 
Clapper v. Frederick, 181. 
Claremont Bank v. Wood, 1332, 1335a, 

Claridge r. Dalton, 1074, 1076, 1077, 

Clark V. Adair, 23. 

V. Am. Coal, 1708. 

V. Bank, 1.586. 

V. Barnes, 62. 

V. Barnwell, 1729. 

V. Benton Man. Co., 388. 

r. Blackstock, 1390. 

V. Bovd, 64, 267. 

V. Caldwell, 214. 

t;. Clark, 24a, 246. 

V. Conner, 884, 

Clark V. Deaderick, 724a. 

V. Des Moines, 420, 422, 427, 1550. 

V. Devlin, 1303, 1305, 1321. 

V. Draper, 1279a. 

I'. Ducheneau, 816. 

V. Eldridge, 983. 

V. Eltinge, 891. 

V. Evans, 1469. 

V. Farmers' Woolen Mfg. Co., 32, 

32a 383. 
V. Gramling, 80. 
t'. Iowa City, 1489, 1514, 1516. 
V. Janesville. 1489, 1500, 1524. 
«;. Jones, 156. 
V. Loomis, 751. 
V. Merriam, 713c. 
V. Mundal, 1260. 
V. Nat. Metropolitan Bank, 1587, 

i;. Nat. Shoe & Leather Co., 1367. 
I'. Peace, 177. 
V. Pigot, 686, 695. 
V. Polk County, 422, 427, 435. 
V. Read, 32, 1312 
V. Reed, 14S1. 

t'. Ricker, 196, 196a, 200, 204. 
V. Saugerties Sav. Bank, 1612, 

V. Seabright, 917. 
V. Sigoumey, 64. 
f. Sisson, 862. 
r. Skeen, 48, .58a. 
V. Statesville, 1535a. 
r. Tanner, 769a, 866. 
V. Thayer, 790, 798. 
I'. Toronto Bank, 1643. 
V. Trueblood, 1470. 
V. Tyler, 448. 
V. Wallace, 365. 
t;. Whitaker, 745, 789. 
V. Young, 1260. 
Clark County v. Rice, 199a. 
Clarke v. Cock, 550. 

V. Des Moines, 428, 1520. 

V. Gordon, 505, 516. 

V. Gurley, 181. 

V. Hawkins, 1691. 

t;. Johnson, 837. 

V. Lazarus, 201. 

V. Marlow, Admr., 99. 

V. Martin, 162. 

V. Morey, 222. 

V. Percival, 50, 53. 

V. Quince, 1473, 1482. 

V. Russell, 930. 

V. Scott, 1250. 

f. Sharp, 1029a, 1030. 

1-. Shea, 1469. 

V. Sigoumev, 66, 267. 

V. State, 1346. 



References are to paragraphs marked § 

Clarke, In re, 361. 

Clarke County v. Gilman, 341. 

Clark Nat. Bank v. Bank of Albion, 

77%, 1607, 1610. 
Clarkson v. London Co., 334. 
Clasey v. Sigg, 834. 
Clason V. Bailey, 74. 
Clause V. Printing Press Co., 1423. 
Clauser v. Stone, 54. 
Claxon V. Dcmaree, 81c. 

V. Swift, 1284. 
Clay V. Cottrell, 359, 725, 1436. 

V. Crowe, 1484. 

V. Edgerton, 1786. 

V. Guge, 1481. 

V. Layton, 188. 

V. Oakley, 998. 
Clay County v. Soc. of Savings, 1537, 

Claybrook v. Commissioners, 1520, 

1540, 1553. 
Clayton v. Cavender, 193. 

V. Clark, 1289a. 

V. Gosling, 89, 108, 1215. 
Clegg V. Cotton, 1075, 1082, 1170. 

V. Lemesurier, 32. 

V. Levy, 914. 
Clemens v. Conrad, 126. 
Clement v. Clement, 3696. 

V. Conrad, 122. 

V. Reppard, 174. 
Clements v. Hull, 61. 
Clendennin v. Southerland, 728. 
Gierke v. Martin, 5. 
Cleveland v. Sherman, 1714. 

V. Worrell, 1484. 
Cleveland Co. v. Chittenden, 693. 
Clevenger v. Lewis, 62. 
Clews V. Bank of New York Nat. Bank- 
ing Assn., 1606a. 
Clifford Banking Co, t;. Donovan Com- 
mission Co., 1369, 1405. 
Clift V. Rogers, 1132. 
Clifton V. Bank of Aberdeen, 62, 62a. 
Clifton Forge v. Allegheny Bank, 1550. 

V. Brush Elec. Co., 1550. 
CUne V. Farmers' Oil Mill, 81. 

V. Guthrie, 852. 

V. Templeton, 176. 
Clinton Bank v. Ayres, 1190. 
Clinton Nat. Bank v. Graves, 70. 

V. Stiger, 1478. 
Clippinger v. Hepbaugh, 188. 
Clode V. Bayley, 992, 995a. 
Clodfelter v. Hulett, 193. 
Clokey v. Evansville & T. H. R. Co., 

Clomston v. Barbiere, 716. 
Clopper V. Union Bank, 1260, 1335a. 
Clopton V. Elkin, 204. 

Clopton V. Spratt, 1311. 

Closson V. Stearns, 74, 688a. 

Closz & Mickelson v. Miracle, 594, 598, 

Clothier v. Adriance, 831c. 
Cloud V. Book News Co., 812. 

V. Scarborough, 1311. 

V. Whiting, 859, 860. 
Clough V. Davis, 69. 

V. Holden, 600, 601, 603, 635. 

V. Seay, 1411. 
Glower v. Wynn, 146, 843. 
Clowes V. Chaldecott, 1036. 
Cloyes V. Cloyes, 180, 1646. 
Clusseau v. Wagner, 730. 
Clute V. Frazier, 782. 

V. Small, 1401, 1404, 1410a, 1411. 

V. Warner, 1425. 
Glutton V. Attenborough, 139. 
Clymer v. Terry, 812. 
Coakley i;. Christie, 812. 
Coal Mining Co. v. Mattingly, 161. 
Coates V. Donnell, 392. 

V. Doran, 1637. 

t;. Preston, 1428. 
Coats V. Mutual Alliance Trust Co., 

Cobb V. Bryant, 812, 1191. 

V. Titus, 766. 

V. Wm. Kenefick Co., 196. 
Coburn v. Omega Lodge, 403. 

V. Webb, 142, 1375. 
Cocheco Bank v. Haskell, 395. 
Cochituate Bank v. Colt, 1681. 
Cochran v. Atchison, 669a, 672, 677. 

V. Nebeker, 1373a, 1418. 

V. Perkins, 205. 

V. Priddy, 775. 

t;. Stein, 782, 815. 

V. Zachery, 81. 
Cochrane v. Dickinson, 769a. 
Cock V. Coxwell, 1375. 

V. Fellows, 99. 
Cocke V. Dickens, 1187. 
Cockrill V. Kirkpatrick, 56, 81. 

V. Loewenstine, 966. 
Cocks V. Borradale, 1196. 

V. Masterman, 1371, 1372. 
Cocksshott V. Bennett, 194. 
Coddington v. Bay, 831c. 

V. Davis, 929, 1095a. 
Coddington Sav. Bank v. Anderson, 

Codman v. Lubbock, 1672a. 

V. Vermont & Canada R. Co., 

V. Vt. R. Co., 1458, 1514. 
Cody t;. City Nat. Bank, 336. 
Coe V. Cayuga Lake R. Co., 10a, 729. 

V. Wallace, 81. 



References are to paragraphs marked § 

Coffee V. Planters' Bank, 678. 
Coffin V. Board of Commissioners, 1538, 
V. HydrauUc Co., 1187. 
V. Spenser, 41. 
V. Trustees, 183. 
Cofiing V. Hardy, 174a. 
Coffman v. Campbell, 496, 505. 

V. Wilson, 795b. 
Coge I'. Palmer, 766. 
Coggill V. American Exch. Bank, 538, 

672, 1356, 1366. 
Coghlan v. May, 725a, 786. 
Cohen v. Hunt, 600, 656. 
Cohn V. Dutten, 713a. 
Coimfcld V. Tancnbaum, 795a. 
Colbum V. Averill, 1759. 

V. Chattanooga, etc., R. Co., 1532, 
Colby V. Copp, 1252. 

V. Parker, 815. 
Coldstone v. Tovey, 253. 
Cole V. Cushing, 694a. 
I'. Handley, 81. 
V. Hills, 1398. 
V. Merchants' Bank, 1777. 
V. Pennell, 230, 238. 
V. Sackett, 1260, 1266a, 1275, 1299. 
V. Sa.\bv, 2.33. 
I'. Smith, 721. 

V. Withers, 1252, 1281a, 1293. 
Colo Hanking Co. v. Sinclair, 812. 
Colt'ham V. Cook, 46. 
Coleman v. Biedman, 1197. 
V. Broad River Tp., 1523. 
t'. Carpenter, 1036, 1043, 1209. 
V. Dunlap, 1238. 
V. Ewing, 1208, 1209. 
V. First x\at. Bank, 1699, 1700. 
1'. Forbes, 1215a. 
1-. Riches, 1733. 
V. Sayer, 617, 626. 
V. Smith, 965. 
V. Stocke, 386. 
Coler t;. Barth, 834a. 

I'. Dwight School Tp., 1537. 
Coles t'. Jones, 743. 

t'. Trecothick, 277. 
Colgate V. Penn. R. Co., 1731. 
Colgin V. City Nat. Bank, 759a. 

V. Henley, 1765. 
Coliger v. Francis, 758, 778. 
Colket V. Freeman, 1036. 
CoUett V. Haigh, 1333. 
ColUer V. Gray, 88. 
V. Mahan, 679. 
V. Nevill, 759, 764. 
CoUingwood v. Merchants' Bank, 605, 

CoUina v. Blantcm, 196a. 

Collins V. Bradbury, 51a. 

V. Buckeye State Ins. Co., 305. 

V. Busch, 1262. 

V. Butler, 1118. 

t'. Central Bank, 1682. 

V. Dawley, 205. 

V. Denning, 1685. 

I'. Gilbert, 728, 776, 812, 814, 815. 

V. Johnson, 687. 

I'. Lincoln, 56. 

V. Makepiece, 1415. 

V. Martin, 831a. 

t'. Panhandle Nat. Bank, 1198. 

V. Trotter, 88, 604. 

t;. Westbury, 857. 

Ex parte, 1612. 
Collis f. Emett, 136, 137, 138. 
CoUom V. Bixby, 719. 
Collyer v. Cook, 103, 1183a. 
Colms t'. Bank, 627. 
Coloma V. Eaves, 1520, 1537, 1542. 
Colombies u. Slim, 1199. 

Colonial Nat. Bank v. Duerr, 899, 970. 
Colonial Nat. Bank of Cleveland v. 

Duerr, 879. 
Colonial Press v. Carter, 156. 
Colorado Nat. Bank v. Boettcher, 499a, 

Colson t'. Amot, 677, 1469. 
Colt t'. Barnard, 996. 

t'. Miller, 1048. 

I'. Noble, 992. 
Columbia Distilling Co. v. Reich. 1385. 
Columbia Falls Brick Co. v. Glidden, 

Columbia Finance & Trust Co. v. Pur- 
cell, 710, 899, 908, 909. 
Columbian Banking Co. v. Bowen, 601, 

612, 969, 1590. 
Columbian Conservatory of Music v. 

Dickenson, 164. 
Columbian County Bank v. Emerson, 

Columbus V. Dennison, 1537, 1545, 

Columbus Ins. A: Banking Co. v. First 

Nat. Bank, 128, 130. 
Colvin V. Peck, 319. 
Colwell i^. Weybosset Nat. Bank, 360, 

Coman i-. The State, 1317. 
Combs I'. Bays, 1260. 

V. xMiller, 197. 
Comer r. Dufour, 1587, 1591, 1593. 
Comings t;. Lcedy, 203, 775. 
Cominsky v. Coleman, 726. 
Commack v. Conrad, 1475. 
Commercial & Savings Bank t'. Pott, 



References are to paragraphs marked § 

Commercial Bank r. Biirksdale, 5S1, 
586, 934, 940. 

V. Ben(xlict, 14G5, 1478, 1695, 1690. 

t'. Hur^wyn, 166. 

V. Cheshire Provident Institution, 

V. Chicago Ky. Co., 1734a, 17346. 

V. Chilbcrg, 21, 1617a. 

V. Claiborne, 1190. 

V. Clark, 11.57, 1220. 

V. Crenshaw, 1.56. 

V. Davy, 748. 

t;. Flowers, 1713a. 

V. French, 399, 1188. 

V. Gove, 1017. 

V. Hamer, tiOO, 656. 

V. Hart, 1.57. 

V. J. K. Armsby Co., 1731. 

V. Kinji, 1041. 

V. Kortrif^ht, MOSg. 

V. Law, 714. 

V. McDounall, 758. 

V. Newport Man. Co., 382, 383, 

V. Norton, 277, 283, 290. 

V. Paton, 1402. 

V. Pfeiffer, 1731. 

V. Strong, 1016, 10.54. 

V. Union Hank, 341, 344. 

V. Varnum, 581, 582, 586, 934. 

V. Waters, 300. 

V. Wood, 159, 1303. 
Commercial Bank of Albany v. Clark, 

V. Hughes, 3346, 1170, 1596, 1611a. 
Commercial Bank of Charlotte v. First 

Nat. Bank, 1636a. 
Commercial Bank of Clyde v. Marine 

Bank, 339. 
Commercial Bank of Dawson v. Ma- 

guire, 1373, 1385. 
Commercial Bank of Essex v. Paddick, 

Commercial Bank of Pennsylvania v. 

Union Bank, 341. 
Commercial Bank of Selma v. Hurt, 

Commercial Exchange Bank v. Nassau 

Bank, 1663. 
Commercial Nat. Bank v. Armstrong, 
336, 340rf. 

V. Brill, 388, 389. 

V. Citizens' State Bank, 184. 

V. Clarke, 1328. 

V. First Nat. Bank, 775, 1585a. 

V. Hamilton Nat, Bank, 334a. 

V. Henninger, 3266. 

V. Tola, 1522. 

V. Proctor, 371. 

V. Waggeman, 1225. 

ConiniiTcial Xat. Bank v. Zimmerman, 

612, 10.50. 
C4)nirnfnM:d Xat. Bank of Chicago v. 

Hiin.i, 1642. 
Commercial State Bank v. Judy, 850. 
Commiskey v. Pike, 1260. _ 
Commissioners v. .lEtna Life Ins. Co., 

V. Bolles, 1503, 1537, 1539. 

V. Chandler, 1522. 

V. Clark, 803, 812, 814, 815, 1503. 

V. Januarv, 1537, 1539, 1544, 1547. 

V. 1311. 

V. SutlitT, 1537. 
Commissioners of Craven County v. 

A. & N. R. Co., 925. 
Commissioners of Floyd County v. 

Day, 428, 431. 
Commissioners of Iredell v. Wiisson, 

Commissioners of Knox County v. 
Aspinwall, 3S9, 1489, 15096, 
1.539, 1.5.50, 15.53. 

V. Nichols, 1.524, 1.5.37, 1.5.50, 1554. 
Commissioners of Leavenworth v. Kel- 
ler. 432, 434. 
Commissioners of Manor v. Clark, 

Commissioners of Shawnee County v. 

Carter, 1.5.5S, 1563. 
Commonwealth v. Allegheny County, 

V. Beaumurchais, 87. 

V. Butterick, 130. 

V. Chandler, 1345. 

V. Clune, 1350. 

V. Donovan, 181. 

V. DuUinger, 130. 

t'. Emigrants' Bank, 1400. 

t'. Emigrants' Ins. Co., 86, 1489. 

V. Foster, 1345. 

V. Gallagher, 1664. 

V. H'aab, 1311. 

t;. Industrial Emigration Savings 
Bank, 1399, 1499a. 

V. .Johnson, 196. 

V. Kendig, 69. 

V. McCuUough, 448. 

t;. McKie, 164. 

V. McWilliams, 1523. 

V. Parmenter, 76. 

V. Pease, 196a. 

V. Pittsburg, 382, 389, 1527a. 

V. Powell, 667, 709, 713a. 

r. Sankey, 1348. 

V. Simonds, 1664. 

V. Spilman, 666. 

V. Stone, 1676. 

t'. ITiomas, 1664. 

V. Ward, 1396. 

References are to paragraphs marked § 


Commonwealth v. Watmough, 1/OSe 
Commonwealth Nat. Bank i-. Baugh- 

man, 1373, 1373a, 1375, 1385. 
Comparree v. Brockway, 709, 710, 716. 
Compress & Warehouse Co. v. Meridian 

Cotton Co., 769a. 
Comptoir D'Escompte v. Dusebach, 

1229, 1623. 
Compton t'. Blair, 1074. 
V. CJilman, 15S6, 1.587. 
V. Patterson, 1266, 12666. 
V. Smith, 1338. 
Comstock V. Buckley, 805, 1236. 
t'. Hannah, 775. 
t;. Hier, 791, 794. 
V. Smith, 12(57. 
Conant v. .\lvonl, 311. 
Coneoni r. Bill.shury, 1431. 

V. Port.sniouth Sav. Bank, lo24. 
V. Robinson, 1.532. 
Condon v. Barnuiii, 748a. 
V. Pearce, r)72, 694. 
V. Rice, S-I9a. 
Cone V. Baldwin, 775. 
V. Brown, 573. 
V. Eldridge, 1758. 
Confederate Note Caae, 87. 
Congan v. Bankes. 920. 
Congaree Co. v. Columbia Ip., 

1.520, 1.523. 
Conger v. Bahbett, 17S9. 

V. Crabtrw^ 1406. 
Conine v. Junetion A B. R. Co., 32a. 
Conklin v. Young, 7S4, 1317a. 
Conkling r. C'.andall, 1.586. 

V. King, 12t)8. 
Conlev V. Winsor. 815a. 
Conlin V. Cantrell, 248. 
Conn f. Cobum, 225, 1314. 

V. Thornton, 46. 
Connable v. Smith, 1401. ., . ^ ^ ,, 
Connecticut In«. Co. v. C. C. & C. C K. 

Co., 149f.. ^ ^, 

Connecticut Mut . Life Ins. Co. t-. Cleve- 
land, etc., R. Co., 1495, 1497, 
1500, 1513. 
V. WesterhofT, 1458a. 
Connecticut & Safe Deposit Co. 

r. Trumbo, 824, 1230. 
Connell r. McLaughlin, 292 
Connelly .•. McKean, 492, 1646, 1648. 
Conner v. Bellamont, 894. 
V. Blo<lKet, 62a. 
V. Clark, 271. 
Connolly v. Dammann, 850. 

I'. Union Sewer Pipe Co., 196. 
Connor r. Donnell, 759, 764, 86.5. 
V. Ho<lgcs, 274, 7136, 995. 
V. Martin, 242, 681. 
V. Root, 24. 

Connor t'. Routh, 76, 1404. 
ConoUy r. Goodwin, 947. 
Conover v. Earl, 686. 
Conrad r. Atlantic Ins. Co., 1<43. 
.'. Clarke, 81a, 189. 
V. Fisher, 831a, 1713a, 1731. 
V. Kinzie, 69. 
V. Smith, 1236a, 1237. 
Conrad S. S. Co. v. Kelley, 1729a 
Conrad Seipp Brewing Co. v. McKit- 

trick, 62. 
Conro V. Port Henry Iron Co., 399, 409. 
Conroe v. Case, 304. 
Conroy i-. Warren, 1081, 1586, 1587, 

1588, 1596, 1652. 
Conseoua v. Willings, 917. 
Consohdateil A.><sn. v. Avegno, 1500. 
Con.solidaH-d Lumber Co. i'. Fidehty & 

1). po.sit Co. of Maryland, 189. 
Consolidated Nat. Bank o. Hayes, 
V. Cunningham, 819. 
Constcrdine i'. Moore, 700, 1227. 
Consumers' Brewing Co. v. Tobin, 193. 
Continental Bank r. Tradesmen s 

Bank, 1362, 1369. 
Continental Bank of Memphis v. Clark, 

VMi'xi, 1337. 
Continental Gin Co. v. Benton, 1227. 
Continental Ins. Co. v. Dorman, 156, 

12.59, 1271. 
Continental Life Ins. Co. v. Barber, 

UYJ'xi, 1313. 
Continental Nat. Bank i-. Bell, 832a. 
f. EUot Nat. Bank, 1708e. 
t'. Folsora, 986. 
t;. McGooch. .52, 62. 
!•. Town.send, 787a, 793a. 
I Weems, 3346, 336, 340d, 698. 
I. Wells, .59. 
Continental Nat. Bank of Chicago v. 

McGoech, 1289. 
Converse t;. Cooke, 1339. 

V. Johnjwm, 88. 
Conway v. Case, 1647. 
Cony V. Price, 375. 

r. Wheelock, 683. 
Cook c. American Tubing & Webbing 
Co., 386, 79.5c, 819, 970. 
V. Baldwin, 497, 497a. 
V. Barnes, 1274. 
V. Be<'ch, 1262. 
I'. Buck, 1277. 

t;. Citizen.s' Mut. Ins. Co., 871. 
I'. Cla>'worth, 214. 
V. Crawford, 11. 
V. Darling, 616, 617. 
t'. Forker, 69, 70, 762a, 767, 1021. 
V. Gilman, 1226. 
V. Googins, 970a, 


References are to paragraphs marked § 

Cook V. Gray, 616. 

V. Helms, 814, 831a. 

V. Jadis, 1503. 

V. Lantlrum, 1321. 

V. Larkin, 803. 

V. Lillo, S7, 169. 

V. Litchfield, 868, 899, 925, 976, 
977, 979, 983. 

V. Martin, 646 1084. 

t;. Merchants' Nat. Bank of Vicks- 
burg 969. 

V. Miltenberger, 550 

V. MolTat, 868. 

V. Norwood, 728. 

V. Sattorlee, 60. 

V. Seeloy, 1613. 

V. Shipnuin, 196. 

t'. Shull, 1342. 

V. Southwick, 7136. 

V. Tullis, 33(). 

V. Wolfendale, .WJ. 
Cooke I'. liranch Bank, 358a. 

V. Brown, 80, 812. 

V. Colehan, 46. 

V. Darwin, 1483. 

V. Nathan, 1769a. 

V. Pearce, 174a. 

V. Pomeroy, 1215. 

V. State Nat. Bank, 1607, 1610. 

V. United States, 436. 
Cookendorfer v. Preston, 622, 623. 
Coolbroth i-. Purrington, 86a. 
Cooley V. Allen, 195a. 

V. Rose, 1213. 
Coolidge V. Brigham, 731, 731&. 

V. Payson, 551, 560, 1799. 

V. Ruggles, 41. 

V. Wiggin, 703. 
Coon V. Pruden, 354, 707. 
Coons V. Clifford, 1343. 
Cooper V. Bailey, 668. 

V. Curtis, 385, 392. 

V. Dedrick, 1777. 

V. Earl of Waldergrave, 896. 

V. German Nat. Bank, 80. 

i;. Hocking Valley Nat. Bank, 

V. Jones, 532. 

V. King, 203. 

V. Meyer, 535, 538, 1365. 

V. Poston, 128, 130. 

V. Smith, 834. 

V. The German Nat. Bank of Den- 
ver, 724. 

V. Town of Thompson, 10a, 729, 
Coore V. Callaway, 487. 
Coors V. German Nat. Bank, 698d. 
Coosley v. Reynolds, 10. 
Cope V. Daniel, 1195. 

Copp V. M'Dugall, 669a, 1113. 

V. Sawyer, 179. 
Coppedge V. Weaver, 189. 
Copper V. Mayor, etc., l.')03. 
Coppman v. Bank of Kentucky, 1233a. 
Coppock !'. Bower, 2(K). 
Corbet V. Bank of Smyrna, 737, 1675, 
1676, 1677. 

I'. Rocksbur>', 1542, 1554. 
Corbett v. Clark, 50, 51, 108, 110. 

i;. Clute, 81a. 

V. Fetzer, 717, 721. 

V. Hughes 1245. 

V. State of Georgia, 41, 50. 

V. Steinmetz, 47. 

V. Waller, 1230. 
Corbin v. Planters' Nat. Bank, 887, 
928, 959, 1039, 1044. 

V. Soulhgate, 547. 

V. Warhorst, 200. 
Corby v. Weddle, 851. 
Corbyn v. Brokmeyer, 713c. 
Corcoran v. Dale, 1419. 

V. Powers, 751. 
Corgan v. Frew, 86, S6a, 688a, 1580. 
Corieller. Allen, 1317. 
Cork V. Bacon, 97, 98, 100, 1587, 1590. 
Corlctt V. Conway, 4976. 
Com I'. Levy, 714. 
Comay i-. Da Costa, 1083, 1128, 1131, 

Comeille v. Pfeiffer, 94, 1203. 
Cornell t'. Hichens, 834. 

V. Moulton, 88, 604. 

V. Nebeker, 1407. 

V. Pratt, 1107. 
Comer Stone Bank v. Rhodes, 322. 
Comett V. Hafer, 716. 
Com Exch. Bank v. Farmers' Nat. 
Bank, 333, 341. 

V. Nassau Bank, 349a. 
Com Exchange Ins. Co. v. Babcock, 

248, 1266a. 
Coming V. Pond, 750. 
Cornish v. Friedman, 202. 

V. Woolverton, 51a, 53, 62, 156, 
Com Nat. Bank v. Hennings, 3266. 
Comthwaite v. First Nat. Bank, 262. 
Comu V. Blackboume, 221. 
Cornwall V. Gould, 1266. 
Comwell V. Orton, 1343. 

I'. Pumphrey, 56. 
Corp V. McComb, 1043. 
Corser v. Craig, 16a, 19, 451, 742. 

V. Paul, 392. 
Cortland Wagon Co. v. Lynch, 301, 

303, 305. 
Cortelyou t'. Maben, 497. 
Cory V. Scott, 1047, 1077, 1172. 



References are to paragraphs marked § 

Corydon Deposit Bank v. McClure, 

12666, 1312. 
Cosgrave v. Boyle, 1001. 
Cosgrove v. Faneburst, 1421. 
Cosmos Cotton Co. v. First Nat. Bank, 

Costa V. Davis, 867. 
Costello V. Crowell, 41, 150. 
Coster V. Thomason, 592, 999. 
Costigan v. Hawkins, 733. 
Costin I'. Burton-Lingo Co., 1090, 1326. 
Costallo V. Laths, 1735. 
Cota V. Buck, 45. 
Cotes V. Davis, 242, 252. 
Cotten V. McKenzie, 204. 
Cottle v. Cleaves, 815. 
Cotton V. Evans, 368 
V. Graham, 180. 
V. John Dtcre Plow Co., 742. 
V. McKenzie, 204. 
V. Simp.s(jn, i3S9. 
I'. Sterling, S03, 804. 
Cotton Mills I'. Comrs., 1535a. 
Cottrell V. Conklin, 713</. 
Couch I'. Meeker, 68, 855. 
r. Sherrill, 9t>0, 1051. 
i;. Waring, 13(M), 1329. 
Coulpiui: V. Clcmen.ston, 1770a, 1789. 
Coulter I'. Richmond, 713<-. 
Councilman v. Towson Nat. Bank, 

Countv I'. McWilliams, 196<i. 
County Judge v. Shelby R. Co., 1556. 
Countv Nat. Bank v. Hohn, 299. 
Countv Savings Bank r. Scoggin Drug 

Cb., 741. 
Courcamp v. Weber, 1385, 1421a. 
Course v. Shackleford, 611, 996. 
Court V. Peppard, 81a. 

V. Valhalla, 193. 
Court Harmony t-. Court Lincoln, 

183 382. 
Courtney r. Doyle, 162, 715. 

f. Hogan, 719. 
Court of Common Pleas in Reynolds v. 

Wheeler, 703a. 
Cousins V. Partridge, 1215. 
Coventr>' v. Gladstone, 1734b. 
Cover f.Mvers, 769a. 
Covert r. Rhodes, 22, 1643. 
Covington v. Com.stock, 653. 

V. Threadgill, 204. 
Cowan V. Hallack, 5, 39, 104, 161. 
t'. Jack.><on, 469. 
V. Radford Iron Co., 88. 
Cowan, McClung & Co. v. Cunningham 

& Ward, 33. 
Cowden v. Elliott, 1428. 
Cowee t'. Cornell, 180. 
Cowgill V. Linville, 1343. 

Cowgill V. Long, 1561. 
t;. Petifish, 850. 
V. Robberson, 1221, 1245. 
Cowhick V. Shingle, 1215. 
Cowie V. Cornell, 188. 

V. Halsall, 1378, 1379. 
Cowing V. Altman, 83, 783, 1632, 1633. 
Cowles V. Harts, 985. 

t;. McVicker, 750, 764, 765. 
V. Peck, 1769. 
Cowper V. Smith, 1789. 
Cowperthwaite v. Sheffield, 16a, 18, 21, 

22, 50, 991, 1636. 
Cowton V. Wickersham, 535. 
Cox I'. Alexander, 146. 

V. Bank of Westfield, 724. 

V. Boone, 1587, 1590, 1592. 

V. Bruce, 1729. 

V. Central Vt. R. Co., 1727. 

i>. Citizens' State Bank, 1198, 

V. Cline, 193, 812. 
V. Coleman, 504a. 
I'. Cox's Ex'r, 64. 
t;. Earle, 1254. 
t». Fenwick, 1281a. 
r. Hayes, 1623. 
V. Nat. Bank, 90, 479, 571, 635, 

639, 640, 643, 644. 
I'. Peterson, 1729a. 
I'. Reinhardt, 1209. 
V. Sloan, 161, 184, 407, 1251. 
V. Smith, 1458a. 
V. Troy, 63, 490, 493. 
i-. Walker, 180. 
Coxe I'. State Bank, 1672a, 1689. 
Coxen V. Lyon, 85. 
Coy t'. Stiner, 1192a. 
Coye t'. Palmer, 1702a. 
Coykendall v. Constable, 316, 322, 

Coyle I'. Smith, 1596. 
Coyne v. Anderson's Exrs., 789a. 
Cozens V. Middleton, 793a. 
Crabtree v. Atchison, 859, 862. 
V. May, 237. 
V. Sisk, 1227. 
Craddock t;. Dwight, 1221. 
Craft t'. Fleming, 7CiO. 

V. Lsham, 17856. 
Crafts V. Beale, 1330. 
Cragin i-. Lovell, 303. 
Craig t'. Brown, 694a. 

V. City of Vicksburg, 1500. 

1-. Dimock 125, 126. 

II. Graig, 25. 

i;. Miller, 1250. 

V. Palo Alto Stock Farm, 664a, 

t'. Price, 617. 



References are to paragraphs marked § 

Craig I'. Sibbett, 174a. 

V. State of Missouri, 1715, 1718, 
1719, 1720. 

V. Twomey, 1191. 
Craighead t'. McLoney, 1376, 1385, 

V. Peterson, 291, 316. 

I'. Swartz, 1339. 
Crain v. Bode, 620. 

V. Cold well, 1163. 
Cram i'. Hendricks, 766. 

V. Sherburne, 1106, 1155. 
Cramer v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 933. 

V. Munkres, 513. 

t'. Redman, 1343. 
Cramlington v. Evans, 616, 1185, 1231. 
Crampton v. Newton, 183, 187. 

V. Perkins, 166, 789, 815. 

V. Zabriskie, 1522a. 
Crandall v. Rollins, 305. 

V. Schroeppel, 654, 1228. 
Crandell r. Vicker>', 758c, 789a. 
Crane v. Brigham, 382. 

t'. Clearing House Assn., 1712. 

V. Dexter, Hortun Co., 1219. 

V. Fourth Street Nat. Bank, 1712a. 

r. McDonald, 1262. 

V. Williamson, 513, 517. 
Cranson r. Goss, 65, 70. 
Craven t'. Bates, 922. 

V. Rvder, 1730a. 
Craven County v. A. & N. C. R. Co., 

Cravens v. Gillilan, 229. 
Crawford v. Aultman & Co., 834a. 

V. Branch Bank, 10, 52, 898, 920, 
983, 991, 1448. 

r. Johnson, 725, 784, 803. 

V. Millspaugh, 1295, 1316. 

V. Roberts, 1260, 1294. 

V. Royal Bank, 1680. 

V. Simonton & Co., 1385. 

V. Spencer, 195a, 832. 

V. Tumbaugh, 1753. 

i'. West Side Bank, 1376, 1578, 
1618a, 1660, 1711a. 
Crawford County i'. Wilson, 428, 432, 

Crawford County State Bank v. 

Stegemann, 187. 
Crawshay v. Collins, 3705. 
Craythom r. Swinburne, 1340. 
Creamer v. Perrj-, 1100, 1131, 1140, 

Crears v. Hunter, 185. 
Creasy r. Gray, 62. 
Credit Co. t'. Howe Machine Co., 386, 

389, 392a, 775, 814. 
Creditors' Union v. Lundy, 161, 164. 
Cregler v, Durham, 369o. 

Crelle v. Loxen, 713a. 
Cremer v. Higginson, 1771. 
Crenshaw v. Collier, 248. 

V. M'Kiernan, 616, 1209. 
Cresap r. Manor, 719, 1281. 
Crescent Bank v. Hernandez, 187. 
Creston Nat. Bank v. Salmon, 775, 

Creswell v. Lanahan, 317, 388. 
Creteau t-. Glass Co., 599. 
Creveling r. Bloomsbury Nat. Bank, 

V. Saladino, 183. 
Cribbs V. Adams, 581, 586, 617, 618, 

908, 934. 
Crider r. Shclbv, 46. 

r. Wagers," 1259, 1260. 
Crilly V. Gallice, 717, 787. 
Crim V. Crim, 849a, 850. 

t'. Fleming, 1311. 

V. Starkweather, 89, 609, 1215. 
Crippen v. Nat. Bank, 1618. 
Cripps V. Davis, 728, 783. 
Crisman v. Leonard, 248. 
Crisp V. Griffiths, 1270. 
Crissev v. Interstate Loan & Tr. Co., 

Croker v. Coldwell, 364. 

V. GetcheU, 719, 984, 992. 

V. Gilbert, 1767. 
Crocker-Woolworth Nat. Bank v. 

Carle, 44. 
Crockett v. Thomaaon, 1373a. 

V. Trotter, 1266. 
Crofoot t'. Thacher & Josselj-Ti, 867, 

Croft f.Bunster, 748, 834. 
Crofts V. Beale, 185. 
Crogster v. Bayfield County, 1522a, 

Crobc V. Sibbett, 7956. 
Crombie v. McGrath, 185. 
Cromell v. Hj-nson, 943. 
Cromer v. Piatt, 983. 
Crompton v. Spencer, 703, 703a. 
Cromwell v. County of Sac, 7586, 803, 
1458a, 1506, 1517a. 

V. Hewitt, 709. 

V. Hynson, 590, 1017, 1145. 

V. Rankin, 1311. 

V. Tate's Exrs., 32. 
Crone v. Stinde, 8346. 
Cronin v. Patrick County, la, 99, 1496, 

Cronise v. Kellogg, 790, 1335a. 
Cronk V. Frith, 112. 
Cronkhite v. Nebeker, 144. 
Crook V. Jadis, 773. 
Crooker v. Hamilton, 80, 81d, 193. 
i;. Hohnes, 44. 

Table of cases 


References are to paragraphs marked § 

Crooks r. Tully, 713c, 724a, 995, 996. 

Crookahank v. Roso, 206. 

Cropley v. Eyster, 728, 784, 812, 1215. 

Cropsey v. Averill, 814. 

Crosby r. Grant, 7S7a. 

V. New London, etc., R. Co., 1512. 

V. Roub, 689a, 690, 835. 

V. Ritchey, 164. 

r. Tanner, 7266. 

v. Woodburj', 7136, 1338. 

V. Wyatt, 1317, 1789. 
Croskey v. Skinner, 1195. 
Crosley v. Re\-nold8, 819. 
Cross r. Hollister, 717. 

r. Moffat, 748. 

V. Wood, 1317. 
Crossan r. Mav, 90, 859. 
Crosse r. Smith, 972, 998, 1016, 1038, 

Crossen v. Hutchinson, 1172. 
Crossley v. Ham, 788. 
Crossman r. Fuller, 158. 
Crossmore r. Pa^je, 48, 89. 
Crosthwait r. Misener, 1200. 

r. Ross, 358a. 
Croswell r. .\ssociation, 1586. 
Croton r. Dalheim, 1083. 
Croughton r. Duvall, 1339. 
Crouse v. First Nat. Bank, 330. 

r. Wagner, 1338a. 
Crout r. De Wolf, 859, 1351, 1353. 
Crow V. Eichinper, 20i3. 
Crowderr. Reed, 19Ca, 316. 
Crowe V. Heem, 1398. 

r. Clay, 1475, 14^. 
Crowell r. Plant, 508. 517. 
Crowford v. Johnson, 726. 
Crowley v. Bany, 592, 1023. 
Crowningshield v. Crowningshield, 164. 
Croxon r. Worthen. 1153, 1158, 1162. 
Cruette r. Jenkins, SOOa. 
Cruger r. Amistronp, 1073, 1567, 1586, 

1571, 1595, 1620, 1652. 
Crura r. Corby, 8346. 
Crump r. Berdan, 824. 
Cnimrine r. Estate of Cnimrine, 74, 

573, 680, 6.S6, 812. 
Crutchers r. Wolf, 1149. 
Crutchfield r. Martin, 532, 535. 
Crutchley r. Clarence, 145, IIW. 

r. NIann, 870. 
Cn,-st r. Crjst, 265. 
Cnstal Plate Glass Co. r. National 

Bank, 1699. 
Cudahy Packing Co. r. National Bank, 

r. State Nat. Bank, 62. 
Culbertson r. Nebon, 27, 54, 108. 

r. Salinger & Brigham, 164. 

V. Wilcox, 719, 1314. 

Cullinan r. Union Surety & Guaranty 

Co., 1604. 
CuUum V. Branch Bank, 831a. 
Culver f. Ashlev, 319. 

V. Lea\-^•, 6^, 704. 

V. Marks, 1588. 
Cumber v. Wane, 1266, 1281. 
Cumberland Bank r. HaU, 1387, 1418. 
Cimaing v. Brown, 1749. 

r. French, 1167. 

r. Roderick. 713^, 1115. 
Cumings t. Wagner, 326. 
Cummings v. Freeman, 36a, 38, 39. 

r. Hurd, 1230. 

f . Kent, 80, 1093. 

t. Kohn, 69S<i, 1181a. 

t. Morris, 11926. 

f. Thompson, 814, 815. 
Cumpston v. McNair, 1769. 
Cunard S. S. Co. v. KeUev, 1728. 
Cundy r. Marriott, 669, 674, 1113. 
Cunningham r. Bank, 195a. 

I. Davenport, 16126. 

r. dans, 195a. 

f. Holmes, 782. 

r . McDonald, 1230, 1233. 

V. Morris, 193. 

r. Scott, 166, 777a. 

t . Smithson, 360, 363. 

r. Tove, 7956. 

r. Ward well, 128, 482. 
Cxmvus V. Guenther, 177. 
Cur^ I. WLssler, 1227. 
CuriewLi V. Corfield, 1160. 
Curran r. Arkansas, 1724, 1725. 

V. \Mtter, 1703. 
Currey r. Harden, 203. 
Carrie r. Boroman, 741. 

r. Donald, 856. 

r. Misa, 1623. 
Currier r. Clark. 185, 1966. 

r. Fellows, 1341. 

r. Hale, 81. 

r. Hodgdon, 747. 

V. Lockwood, 36a 39, 899. 
Curr\' r. Bank of Mobile, 694a, 1043, 

r. La Fon, 1236, 1238. 

r. Reynolds, 4S6. 

r. Van Wagner, 1104. 

r. White, 370. 
Curtin r. Salmon River Hvdraulic 

Gold Min., etc., Co., 274, 394a. 
Ctirtis r. Bemis, 1199. 

r. Clark, 203. 

r. Douglass, 1181a. 

r. Hazen, 104. 

r. Horn, 43. 

t. Lea\-itt, 382, 1565. 

f. Martin, 1105. 1110. 1165. 



References are to paragraphs marked § 

Curtis V. Mohr. 824. 

V. Portland Sav, Bank, 24. 

V. Rush, 1274. 

V. Sniallman, 1769. 

V. State Bank^^ 1012, 1049. 
Curtis, Jones & Co. v. Smelter Nat. 

Bank, 382. 
Curtton I'. Moore, 258. 
Cushinti V. Field, 41, 1398. 

V. Gore, 1583, 1.596. 
Cushman v. Dement, 713c. 

V. Thayer Mfg. Co., 1708/, 1708^;, 
Cushwa V. Improvement Assn., 1265, 

1266, 1267, 1268. 
Custard v. Hodge, 775, 1235a. 
Cuthbert v. Bowie, 156. 

V. Haley, 207. 
Cutler V. Cook, 1435a. 

V. Parsons, 179, 1260. 

V. Welsh, 200. 
Cutter V. Roberts, 856. 
Cutting V. Whittemore, 1266. 
Cuttle V. Cleaves, 815. 
Cutts V. Perkins, 16a, 21, 23, 451, 491, 

498a, 16186. 
Cuylas t;. N. Y. & S. R. Co., 1555. 
Cuyler v. Merrifield, 290. 

V. Nellis, 1022. 

V. Stevens, 972, 1043. 

Dabney v. Campbell, 629. 

V. Stidger, 999a. 
Daby v. Ericsson, 1229. 
Da Costa v. Cole, 1244. 

V. Jones, 195. 
Daggett V. Simonds, 68. 

V. Whiting, 790. 
Dahl V. Stakke, 203. 
Dailey t'. Sharkey, 644. 
Daily v. Bartholomew, 666. 

r. Coker, 122, 125. 
Dair v. United States, 856. 
Dakin v. Graves, 966. 
Dale V. Gear, 719, 720a, 721, 722. 

V. Moffit, 707, 713d, 716. 

V. Pope, 81. 
Dale, Ex parte, 336. 
Daley v. Brennan, 1226. 
Dalrymple v. Hilenbrand, 676. 

V. Whittingham, 422, 430, 434. 

V. Wyker, 161. 
Daly V. Butchers & Drovers' Bank, 341. 

V. Slater, 992. 
Dana v. Brown, 1708<i. 

V. Kemble, 1019. 

V. National Bank of the Republic, 

Dana v. San Francisco, 422, 427, 431. 

V. Sawyer, 602, 603. 

V. Third Nat. Bank, 1636. 
Dane v. Kirkall, 212. 
Daneri v. Gazzola, 1321. 
Danforth v. Crookshanks, 202. 
Dangerfield r. Wilby, 1275. 
Daniel v. Brewton, 1326. 

V. Cartony, 760. 

V. Daniel, 1418. 

V. Glidden, 177, 305. 

t'. Kyle, 1586, 1587, 1588. 

t;. Learned, 202. 

t;. McRae, 703. 

V. St. Louis Nat. Bank, 336. 

V. Smith, 24. 

V. Wharton, 1312. 
Daniels f. Empire St. Sav. Co., 278, 

V. Wilson, 758. 
Danker t'. Jacobs, 1343. 
Dann v. Norris, 667. 
Danville v. Pace, 1565. 

V. Southerlin, 1533, 1534. 
Darbishire v. Parker, 612, 911, 1033, 

1037, 1039, 1044, 1046. 
Darby v. Bemey Nat. Bank, 101, 1326. 
Darey v. Jones, 1021a. 
Darlard v. Taylor, 246, 25. 
Darling r. Blazek, 970, 1203, 1326. 

V. March, 370, 1109a. 

V. Osborne, 724a 
Darlington v. Atlantic Tr. Co., 1550, 

V. Mayor, 1528. 
Darnell v. Smith, 249. 

V. Williams, 201. 
Darrach v. Savage, 452, 971. 
Darrington v. Alabama, 1723, 1725. 
Darst V. Gale, 318. 
Dartmouth College v. Woodward, 378, 

379, 1519a, 1520. 
Darwin i'. Rippey, 1386. 
Da Silva t-. Fuller, 1233, 1461, 1618a. 
Daskam v. Ulman, 732. 
Dauber v. Blackney, 739a, 1763. 
Daubuz t'. Morehead, 219. 
Daugherty v. Eastbum, 699. 
Davega v. Moore, 105. 
Davenport v. City Bank, 1681. 

V. Schram, 700. 

V. Sleight, 148. 

V. State Banking Co., 1311. 

V. Woodbridge, 742. 
Davenport Nat. Bank v. Homeyer, 

Davenport Sav. Fund Assn. v. N. A. 

Fire Ins. Co., 321. 
Davey Bros v. Waughtal, 1788. 
Davey v. Jones, 341. 



References are to paragraphs marked § 

David V. Philips, 1245. 
Davidson v. Cooper, 1373a, 1379. 

V. Jordon, 193. 

V. Lanier, 142, 147. 

V. Powell, 688c, 730. 

V. Ramsey County, 1521. 

V. Stanley, 294, 299. 
Davies v. Dodd, 1196. 

V. Humphreys, 1341. 

V. Stainback, 1336. 

V. Watson, 1371. 
Daviess County v. Dickinson, 1532, 

1537, 1545, 1555. 
Daviess County Bank, etc., Co. v. 

Wright, 1312, 1316, 1319. 
Daviess County Court v. Howard, 422, 

Davis V. Allen, 39, 350a, 352, 353, 369a, 
V. Anable, 1266a. 
V. Baker, 532. 

V. Bank of Tennessee, 1023. 
V. Barger, 70. 
V. Bartlett, 812, 814, 819. 
V. Bly, 81c. 
V. Boa!dy, 53. 
V. Bowsher, 831a. 
V. Bradley, 725a. 
V. Briggs, 354, 1183. 
V. Bowsher, 337. 
r. Brown, 719a, 1217. 
V. CarlLsle, 137;ia, 1395. 
t'. Clarke, 97, 98, 362, 485, 486. 
V. Clemson, 868, 894. 
V. Coleman, 868, 917, 1387. 
t'. Cook, 369. 
V. Davi.s, 195a. 
I'. Desauque, 373. 
t'. Dodd, 1475, 1479. 
V. Dudley, 234. 
V. Emerson, 1340. 
I'. England, 80, 403. 
V. Eppinger, 1209. 
f. Eppler, 640, 1390. 
V. Erickson, 834. 
V. Evans, 81a. 
t'. First Nat. Bank, 341. 
V. Francisco, 1177. 
V. French, 262. 
V. Gallagher, 71. 
V. Garr, 101. 

V. Gowen, 1005, 1085, 1148. 
V. Graham, 1316. 
V. Gray, 8o4. 
I'. Gyde, 1274. 
V. Hanly, 1041. 
V. Helm, 104. 
V. Henr>', 1385. 
r. Investment Co., 390. 
V, Jenney, 1418, 1421o. 

Davis V. Jones, 68a, 83. 

V. Keyes, 3696. 

t^. King, 341. 

V. Lee, 1245. 

I'. Marvine, 752, 924. 

V. McCready, 7956. 

V. Meisner, 185. 

i;. Miller, 5, 724, 724a, 725, 775, 
782, 786, 10926, 1227, 1228, 
1233, 1436, 1437. 

V. Morgan, 703, 717. 

t;. Neligh, 725. 

I'. Noll, 725, 1435a, 1436. 

V. Notioare, 1429. 

I'. Parsons, 1623. 

V. Pawlette, 800a. 

V. Peck, ti86. 

V. Poland, 370. 

V. Proprietors' Meeting House, 

I'. Ramsey County, 1523. 

t;. Richardson, 122. 

V. Richerson, 125, 126. 

V. Schmidt, 202. 

r. Seeley, 775. 

V. Sittig, 194, 741. 

V. Smith, 366. 

V. Staats, 1306a. 

r. Stems, 81a. 

t'. Steuben School Township, 427. 

r. Stout, 80, 81, 1316. 

r. Thomas, 859, 860. 

V. Turner, 360. 

V. Vice, 1221. 

V. Wait, 789a. 

I'. Welch, 12666. 

V. Wells, Fargo & Co., 1785, 1785a. 

V. West Saratoga B. Union, 383. 

V. W. J. West & Co., 926. 
Davis, Estate of, 1260, 1300. 
Davis & Co. t'. Howell Cotton Co., 356, 

Davis Machine Co. v. Best, 795a, 842. 
Davis Sewing Machine Co. v. Gibbons, 

DavLson v. City Bank, 1623. 

I'. Robertson, 114. 
Dav^^ V. Kelley, 80. 
Dawdy v. Dawdy's Estate, 188. 
Dawson, In re, 16a. 
Dawson v. Bank of Ilhnois, 80. 

V. Goodyear, 793a. 

V. Morgan, 1449, 1459. 

V. Real Estate Bank, 3266. 

V. Wombles, 161, 177, 1181a. 
Dawson Town & Gas Co. v. Woodhull, 

Day V. Ehnore, 1767. 

V. Long, 188a. 

V. Nix, 203. 



References are to paragraphs marked § 

Dille V. White, 57, 203, 1651. 
Dillenbeck v. Dygert, 1236. 
DiUingham v. Hook, 906. 

V. Parks, 326. 
Dillman v. Nadelhoffer, 1759, 1769. 
Dillon I'. Dudley, 1458. 

V. Rimmer, 1273. 

I'. Russell, 1311. 
Dils V. Bank of Pikeville, 68a. 
Dimond v. Harris, 724a. 

V. Sanderson, 241. 
Dingley v. McDonald, 1221. 
Dingwall v. Dunster, 543, 544, 545, 546. 
Dinlay v. McCullagh, 180. 
Dinsmore v. Duncan, 441, 1495. 

V. Stimbert. 850. 
Dirimple v. St. Bank of Philips, 21. 
Dishor v. Disher, 63. 
Dispatch Line of Packets v. Bellamy 

Man. Co., 404. 
Dispatch Printing Co. v. National 

Bank of Commerce, 293, 803. 
District of Col. v. Cornell, 420, 436, 

783a, 788, 1235a, 1502. 
Ditch V. Weston Nat. Bank, 340, 340b, 

Ditchburn v. Goldsmith, 195a. 
Ditmar, Guardian of West, v. West, 185. 
Dittl V. Slaughter, 177. 
Ditty V. Dominion Nat. Bank, 386a. 
Dively v. Cedar Falls, 420, 1520. 
Diven i'. Phelps, 1690, 1691. 
Dixon V. Bovill, 55. 

V. Dixon, 832, 1190. 

V. Elliott, 1158, 1163, 1164, 1167. 

V. Nuttall, 89, 619, 621. 

V. Spencer, 1789. 

V. Yates, 1280. 
DLxon County v. Field, 1543a. 
Doane v. King, 769a. 
Dob V. Halsey, 366. 
Dobbins v. Com. of Erie, 126. 

V. Etowah Mfg. Co., 387. 

V. Oberman, 28, 43, 769a. 

V. Parker, 156, 835. 
Dobree v. Eastwood, 1003, 1009, 1045. 
Dobson V. Espie, 542. 

V. Moore, 290. 
Dockery v. Faulkner, 363. 
Dod V. Fourth Nat. Bank, 339. 
Dodd V. Bishop, 370. 

V. Denny, 88. 

V. Doty, 83. 

V. Dunne, 838. 

V. Lee, 800a. 
Doddrill's Exrs. v. Gregory's Admr., 

Dodge V. Bank, 748. 

V. Bank of Ky., 999a. 

V. Birkenfeld, 1230, 1233. 

Dodge V. Emerson, 53, 1260, 12666. 

V. Haskell, 1418. . 

V. Meyer, 1734. 

V. Nat. Exch. Bank, 575, 1571a, 
1618, 1663. 

V. Gates, 203. 

t;. Perkins, 1458. 
Dodson r. Baskin, 357. 

I'. Clark, 1221. 

t;. Taylor, 1000, 1001, 1328. 
Doe V. Burnham, 198, 808. 

V. Callow, 1230. 

V. Catamore, 1418. 

i;. Newton, 1219. 

V. Suckermore, 1219. 
Doebling r., 1260. 
Dogan t'. Dubois, 795. 
Doherr v. The Etona, 1741. 
Doherty v. Perry, 797. 
Dohoney v. Dohonev, 69. 
Dolan t;. Mitchell, 1215. 
Dole V. Lincoln, 246. 
Dolinski v. First Nat. Bank of Pitts- 
burg, 94. 
Dollar Sav. & Trust Co. t'. Crawford, 

108, 271, 700, 797. 
Dollfus «'. Frosch, 292, 576, 622, 634, 

1081, 1198. 
Dolman v. Cook, 867. 

V. Orchard, 362, 370, 488. 
Dolson V. De Ganahal, 80. 
Don V. Lippman, 878, 896. 
Donaldson i'. Grant, 53, 60. 

V. Means, 1162. 
Donallv v. Wilson, 1250. 
Done V. Walley, 1341. 
Donegan v. Wood, 9, 581, 614, 946, 

947, 1050. 
Donelly v. Howie, 1147. 
Donelson v. Taylor, 1480. 
Donkle v. Milem, 1312, 1389. 
Donley v. Tindall, 87, 170. 
Donlon v. Davidson, 1590. 
Donnell v. Sav. Bank, 392, 1074, 

Donner v. Madison Coxmty Bank, 341. 

V. Remer, 1016. 
Donnerberg v. Oppenheimer, 726a, 803, 

Donohoe-Kelly Banking Co. v. South- 
em Pac. Co., 1644. 
Donohue v. Gamble, 833. 
Donohue Banking Co. v. Sav. Bank, 

Donovan v. Frazier, 1250. 

V. Pitcher, 866. 

V. Standard Oil Co., 1729a, 1732. 
Donovan Real Estate Co. v. Clark, 

Dooley v. Houston Land, etc., Co., 183. 



References are to paragraphs marked § 

Dooley v. Smith, 1248. 
DooUttle V. Ferry, 717, 718, 719. 
Doom et al. v. Sherwyn, 670, 717. 
Doppelt V. National Bank, 1652. 
Dorchester, etc., Bank v. Milton Bank, 

Dorchester, etc., Bank t>. New England 

Bank, 341. 
Dom V. Parsons, 812. 
Dorr t'. Davis, 271. 

V. New Jersey Co., 1729a. 
Dorris v. Cronan, 205, 1332a. 
Dorsey v. Abrams, 1607. 

t;. Wat.son, 1157. 

V. Wolf, 62, 62a. 
Doss V. Peterson, 80. 
Doty v. Batcs^^361, 369. 

V. Knox County Bank, 204. 

V. WiLson, 747. 
Douai V. Lutjens, 196, 815. 
Doubleday f. Kress, 573, 574, 575, 

Doud V. Nat. Bank, 1785a. 
I)..UK:d V. Cowles, 362, 482, 1260, 1268. 
Dougherty i'. Deeney, 1221, 1222. 

V. Savage, 194. 

V. The Bank, 326a, 7796. 

V. We.stern liank, 647, 1685. 
Doughtv V. Tunk, 1201. 
Douglai V. Bank, 656, 899, 945, 955, 
987, 991. 

V. County of Pike, l.')25, 1535a. 

I'. Rowland, 1767, 17856. 

r. Matting, 850. 

V. Oldham, 885. 

V. Rej-nolds, 1755, 1773, 1785a, 
17856, 1787. 
Douglas County v. Minnesota T. Co., 

Douglass v. Richards, 193. 

V. Scott, 144, 713a. 

V. Wilkeson, 102, 104. 
Douthart v. Congdon, 204. 
Dove V. Fansler, 1412. 
Doveray v. Kellogg, 375. 
Dow V. Moore, 407. 

V. Rowell, 899. 

I'. Sperrj', 1351. 

I'. State Bank, 798. 

V. Tuttle, 158. 
Dowdy V. McClallan, 172. 
Dower. Schutt, 187,860. 
Dowell V. Banking Assn., 1643. 

V. Brown, 1199. 
Dow-Hayden Grocery Co. v. Muncy, 

Dow Law Bank t-. Godfrey, 94. 
Down i^. Hailing, 783, 1468, 1595, 

16.33, 1634. 
Downer v. Cheeseborough, 887. 

Downer v. Reed, 859. 

V. Remer, 979a, 980, 1024. 
Downes & Co. v. Church, 464, 482. 
Downes v. Richardson, 191, 1401. 
Downey v. Hicks, 12G0, 1262. 
Downing v. Backenstoes, 620. 

V. Donegan, 1227. 

V. Lee, 183. 

V. Neeley & Stephens, 795a, 1219, 

V. Wheeler, 1181a. 
Downs V. Planters' Bank, 1039, 1041. 

V. Webster, 81, 81c. 
Dows V. Greene, 1731, 17.50a. 

V. National E.xchange Bank, 1734a, 
17346, 1734c. 

I'. Perrin, 1735, 1750a. 

t'. Town of Ehiiwood, 1560. 
Dowse V. Master, 1260. 
Dowvey v. O'Keefe, 714. 
Doxy V. Exchange Bank of Perry, 183, 

Doyle V. First Nat. Bank of Birming- 
ham 624. 

r., 534. 
Dracachi v. Anglo-Egj'ptian Nav. Co., 

Drage v. Ibberson, 196a. 

V. Netter, 1291. 
Drake v. Chandler, 207. 

1-. Elwyn, 361, 362. 

V. Flewcllon, 403. 

V. Henly, 1217. 

!'. Markle, 56, 713d, 1703, 1706. 

r. Mitchell, 1274. 

V. Pueblo Nat. Bank, 1.57. 

V. Rogers, 69, 83. 

I'. Stuart, 1215. 
Draper v. demons, 588, 590, 654. 

V. Cowles, 832. 

V. Hill, 1289a. 

V. Jackson, 255, 256, 1184. 

V. Mass. Steam Co., 307, 400. 

V. Rice, 80, 1230. 

V. Snow, 1757, 17.59, 1767, 1779. 

i;. Springport, 14916, 1495a. 

V. Weld, 713a. 

V. Wild, 1297. 

V. Wood, 855, 1373a, 1385, 1390. 
Drayton v. Dale, 93, 227, 242, 260, 536. 
Dresus v. Union Nat. Bank, 361. 
Drennan v. Bunn, 670. 
Dresler v. Ward, 87. 
Dresser v. Missouri, etc., R. Co., 758c, 

7796, 789a. 
Drew I'. Hagerty, 24a 

V. Phelps, 573 

V. Towle, 203. 
Drexel v. Piisey, 710, 713a. 
Drexler v. McGljTin, 991, 1000. 


References are to paragraphs marked § 

Drexler v. Smith, 366, 1375, 1377, 

Driggs V. Rockwell, 725. 
Drilling v. First Nat. Bank, 7796. 
Drinkall v. Movins State Bank, 573, 

Drinkwater v. Tebbets, 1096. 
Driscoll V. West Bradley & C. M. Co., 

1708a, 1708(/, 170S/. 
Drovers' Bank v. Roller, 1612a. 
Drovers' Nat. Bank v. Albany County 
Bank, 1771. 
V. Blue, 779b. 

t;. Provision Co., 654, 1603. 
Druke v. lleiken, 24. 
Drum V. Benton, 64, 267, 16186, 1623. 
Drumm v. Bradfute, 964. 
Drummond v. Drummond, 131. 

V. Prestman, 1755. 
Duanesburg v. Jenkins, 1523, 1550, 

Dubois V. Del., etc., Canal Co., 298. 

t;. Mason, 130, 707a, 7076. 
Du Boise v. Wheddon, 226. 
Dubreys v. Farmer, 622. 
Dubuque County v. R. Co., 1523. 
Du Carry v. Gill, 275. 
Ducarse v. Keyscr, 748a. 
Duckert v. Von Lilienthal, 956, 963. 
Duckett V. Bank of Balto., 1533, 
V. Nat. Mechanics' Bank, 1612a. 
Du Clos V. Batcheller, 193. 
Dudgeon v. Haggart, 1267. 
Dudley v. Board of Comrs., 11926. 
Dudman v. Earl, 1478. 
Duerson's Admr. v. Alsop, 629, 814, 

815, 896, 899, 970a. 
Duerson v. Alsop, 815, 817, 1229. 
Dufaur v. Oxenden, 497, 4976. 
Duff V. East India Co., 1614. 
Duffield V. Elwes, 24. 
Duffy, In re, 92, 143a. 
V. Hobson, 122. 
V. O'Connor, 688c, 996, 1092a. 
Dufourv. Morse, 1130, 1142. 
Dugan V. Campbell, 56. 

V. U. S., 443, 576, 687, 1189a, 1198, 
1227, 1229, 1230, 1230a. 
Dugane Hvezda Porokn, 99, 479. 
Duggan V. Champlin, 62. 
V. King, 1125, 1126. 
V. Monk, 1306. 
Dugin V. Bartol, 105. 
Duhammel v. Pickering, 221. 
Duke V. Cahawba Co., 1708^. 
V. Christy, 1341. 
V. Clark, 7266. 
Duke of Norfolk v. Howard, 654. 
Duker t;. Franz, 1403. 

Dulaney v. Payne, 1186a. 
Dulling V. Weeks, 1340. 
Dumbrow v. Gelb, 1385. 
Dumont v. Pope, 470, 474, 966. 

V. WiUiamson, 670. 
Dunbar v. Dunbar, 24, 246. 
V. Marden, 112. 
t;. Smith, 568. 
V. Tyler, 1070, 1076. 
Duncan v. Anderson, 720a. 
t;. Berlin, 1636, 1644. 
V. Course, 9. 
t;. Hodges, 148. 
V. Jaudan, 1612a. 
V. Kirtley, 303. 
V. Louisville, 51a, 834. 
t;. McCuUough, 1144. 
V. Nells, 307. 

v. N. & S. Wales Bank, 1343. 
V. Pope, 856. 
V. Scott, 857, 858. 
V. Sparrow, 899. 
Duncan & Sherman v. Gilbert, 792, 

Dundas v. Bowler, 899. 
Dundee Mort. & Trust Co. v. Nixon, 

Dunham i'. Downer, 1338. 
V. Packing Co., 842. 
f. Peterson, 832. 
Dunkerson, In re, 1708<i. 
Dunkle v. Nichols, 617. 
Dunlap V. Hales, 232. 
V. Kelly, 812, 1458. 
V. Smith, 1689. 
V. Thompson, 1032. 
Dunn V. Adams, 5, 891. 
V. Clements, 1400. 
V. Ghost, 719, 757. 
V. National Bank of Canton, 777a. 
V. O'Keefe, 454. 
V. Parsons, 1311. 
V. Snell, 748. 

V. Weston, 726, 786, 790, 793a. 
V. Whalen, 1604. 
Dunnegan v. Stevens, 867, 873, 902. 
Dunning v. Heller, 6886. 
Dunovan v. Flynn, 504. 
Dupays v. Shepherd, 488. 
Dupeau v. Waddington, 827. 
Dupont V. Mt. Pleasant Ferry Co., 

Dupont De Nemour Powder Co. t;. 

Rooney, 1003. 
Duramus v. Harrison, 1428. 
Duran v. Aver, 1458a. 
Durant v. Banta, 762a, 763, 767. 
V. Iowa County, 800a, 1500. 
Durbin v. Northwestern Machine 
Works, 1319. 



References are to paragraphs marked § 

Durbin v. Northwestern Scraper Co., 

1316, 1321. 
Durden v. Smith, 1060, 1070. 
Durein v. Moeser, 781a, 812. ' 
Durgin v. Bartol, 105. 
Durham v. Manrow, 1779. 

V. Price, 1133. 
Durkin v. Cranston, 114. 
Durland v. Durland, 164. 
Dumford v. Patterson, 633. 
Durrum v. Hendrick, 1084. 
Durvee i'. Dennison, 1147. 
Dusenbury v. Albright, 94, 1388. 

V. ElHs, 306. 
Dutch V. Boyd, 101. 
Dutcher v. Porter, 71. 
Dutchess Cotton Mfg. Co. v. Davis, 

Dutchess County v. Davis, 47. 
Dutchess County Bank v. Ibbottson, 

Dutton t'. Bratt, 1103. 

V. Ives, 834. 

V. Marsh, 406, 408. 

V. Merchants' Nat. Bank, 1712a. 
Duvall V. Farmers' Bank, 1002b, 1130, 

Dwight V. Emerson, 611, 996. 

V. Newell, 266, 680. 

V. Scovil, 1087. 
Dwinnell v. McKibbcn, 1312, 1325. 
Dwycr v. Railroad Co., 17336. 
Dyar v. Shenkberg, 1325, 1326. 
Dyas j;. Hanson, 406, 605, 1590. 
Dye V. Scott, 1093. 
Dyer i'. Covington Township, 432, 434. 

f. Gilson, 1763. 

V. Sebrell, 687, 1181a. 
Dygert v. Vermont L. & T. Co., 879, 

Dykers v. Leather Manufacturers' 
Bank, 1584, 1617a. 

I'. Townsend, 303. 
Dykman t;. North Bridge, 183, 656, 

Dymock v. Mo. Ry. Co., 795a, 1749. 

Eadie v. Ashbaugh, 318, 319, 321. 
Eagle V. Kohn, 197, 807, 1496, 1551. 
Eagle Bank r. Chapin, 1039, 1051. 

V. Hathaway, 992, 995, 1005a, 
1006, 1011, 1014. 

V. Smith, 740, 1675. 
Eagle Mining & Imp. Co. v. Lund, 

Eakin t-. Citizens' State Bank of Ness 

City, 1567. 
Eames v. Crosier, 663a, 724a, 815, 819. 

Eames Brake Co. v. Proaer, 1289. 
Earhart v. Grant, 781. 
Earl V. Peck, 180. 

Earl of Shrewsbury v. North Stafford- 
shire R. Co., 377. 
Earle v. Enos, 80, 790. 

V. Foster, 713d. 

V. Reed, 226. 

V. Robinson, 177, 205, 206. 
Early v. Preston, 970, 1052, 1053. 

V. Wilkinson & Hunt, 298, 300. 
Earnest i'. Barrett, 668, 669a, 730. 

V. Taylor, 1116. 
Easeley v. Crockford, 774. 
Eason v. Isbell, 635. 
Easterly v. Barber, 703. 
Eastern Bank v. Brown, 1023. 
East Haddam Bank v. Scovill, 341. 
East Hartford v. Hartford County, 

East India Co. v. Tritton, 672, 676. 
East Lincoln v. Davenport, 1537, 1550. 
Eastman v. Commonwealtn, 1664. 

V. Plumer, 1221, 1222, 1236. 

V. Shaw, 751, 758. 

V. Turman, 983, 995. 
East Oakland Township v. Skinner, 

1538, 1544a. 
Easton v. German-American Bank, 
1277a, 1278a. 

V. Hyde. 1706. 

V. Pratchett, 174, 179, 180. 

V. Strothcr, 354. 
East River Bank t^. Butterworth, 1266. 
East River Nat. Bank v. Gove, 388. 
Eastwood V. Kenyon, 182, 240. 
Eaton t'. Alger, 11926. 

V. Boissonault, 1458a. 

V. Carey, 187 

V. Emerson, 80. 

V. Libbey, 179. 

V. McMahon, 719, 1145. 

I'. WTiitmore, 1316. 
Eaton & H. R. Co. v. Hunt, 1496. 
Eaves t'. Henderson, 81. 
Eberhart v. Page, 710. 
Ebersole v. Ridding, 1233. 
Ebert v. Gitt, 126, 775. 
Eccles f. Ballard, 612, 663a. 
Ecker v. First Nat. Bank, 392. 
Eckert v. Louis, 1373, 1373a, 1390. 

V. Pickel, 1411, 1412. 
Eckhert v. Ellis, 726a, 805. 
Eckman v. Scott, 248. 
Ecpert V. Condres, 611. 
Eddy V. Bond, 1392. 
Edelen r. White, 1303. 

V. Worth, 154. 
Edelman i'. Ram.", 130. 
Edgecomb t;. Rodd, 196. 


References are to paragraphs marked 

Edgefield t'. Farmers' Co-operative 

Mfg. Co., 832a. 
Edgerly v. Lawson, 7136, 1754, 1/76. 

V. Shaw, 230. 
Edie V. East India Co., 623, 698. 
Edis V. Bury, 131. 
Edison Electric Co. v. Blount, 205. 
Edison v. Edison, 1340. 
Edisto Phosphate Co. v. Sandford, 164. 
Edmonds v. Groves, 177. 
Edmonson v. Potts, 1339. 
Edmonston v. Ascough, 156, 713a, 
V. Gilbert, 330, 1005a. 
Edmunds v. Gates, 983. 

V. Digges, 737, 1672, 1675, 1677. 
V. Rose, 675. 
Edmundson v. Drake, 1785a. 
Edney v. Willis, 725, 782. 
Edon V. Smyth, 1286. 
Edson, In re, 9956. 

V. Angell, 336, 340d. 
V. Fuller, 550. 
V. Jacobs, 1017. 
Edward Mine's Lumber Co. v. Ander- 
son, 567, 569. 
Edward Knapp & Co. v. Tidewater 

Coal Co., 383, 790. 
Edwards v. Bates Co., 1509. 
V. Bohannon, 12816. 
V. Brewer, 1730a. 
V. Brown, 850. 
V. Chair Co., 1319. 
V. Dick, 674. 
V. Jones, 758. 
V. McKee, 1478. 
V. Moses, 1586, 1620. 
V. Ramsey, 59. 
V. Sartor, 1385, 1411. 
V. Scull, 1195. 
V. Tandy, 1149. 
V. Thomas, 283, 284, 292, 775, 

V. Wagner, 741. 
V. White, 724a, 797. 
Edwin V. Lancaster, 1334, 1337. 
Effinger v. Richards, 150. 
Egerton v. Fulton Nat. Bank, 3266. 
Egg V. Barnett, 1648. 
Eggan V. Briggs, 1191. 
Eggemann v. Henschen, 1310. 
Eggleston v. Mason & Co., 359. 
Ehle V. Chittenango Bank, 56. 
Ehrichs v. De Mill, 16a, 50. 
Ehrlich v. Jennings, 1469. 
Ehrmen v. Union Cent. Life Ins. Co., 

Eichelberger v. Bank, 815, 843, 1181a. 
V. Finley, 1078, 1586, 1588, 1596, 

Eichner v. Bowerv Bank, 1571. 
Eighth Ward Bank of Brooklyn v. 

McLoughlin, 5.")(J. 
Eilbert v. Finkbeimcr, 713f/. 
Eisenger v. Lefkowitz, 819. 
Eisner v. Kellcy, 1329. 
Elbert v. McClelland, 1418. 
El Dorado Imp. Co. v. Citizens' Bank, 

Eldred v. Malloy, 41, 195a. 
Eldridge v. Kay, 86a, 812. 
Elford V. Teed, 464a, 600. 
Elgin V. Hill, 72.'5a. 
Elgin City Banking Co. v. HaJl, 177, 

693, 700, 777, 7796, 795a. 
Elias V. Finnegan, 780. 
Eliot Nat. Bank v. Woonsocket Electric 

&c. Co., 392a. 
Elizabeth v. Force, -1399, 1499a, 1500, 

Elkhart HydrauUc Co. v. Turner, 

EUerslaw v. Magniac, 1734a. 
Ellett V. Britton, 51. 
Ellicott V. Martin, 165, 775, 814. 

V. Nichols, 1215. 
EUinger's Appeal, 94. 
Elliott V. Abbott, 392, 1190. 
V. Armstrong, 741. 
V. Brady, 193. 
V. Chestnut, 146. 
V. Deason, 67, 145, 725. 
V. Dudley, 367. 
V. Giese, 1764. 
V. Ince, 210. 
V. Lcvings, 1406. 
V. Moreland, 710. 
V. Quails, 1198, 1317. 
V. White, 965. 
Ellis V. Ballou, 1266a. 

V. Blackberby, 1198, 1227. 

V. Commercial Bank, 582, 962, 

1021, 1118. 
V. Ellis, 40. 
V. Francis, 277. 
V. Hahn, 104. 
V. Littlefield, 262. 
V. Mason, 40. 
V. McLemore, 103. 
V. Ohio Life Ins. Co., 533, 1361, 
1362, 1367, 1371, 1372, 1657. 
V. Randle, 159. 
V. Wheeler, 96, 1584. 
V. Wild, 7316. 
Ellison V. CoUingridge, 35, 1581. 
V. Jackson Water Co., 316. 
V. Simmons, 161, 174, 769o. 
Ellsworth V. Brewer, 694a, 1204, 1223. 
V. Fogg, 1289a. 
V. Hopkins, 241. 



References are to paragraphs marked § 

Elmer v. Loper, 185. 
Elminger v. Drew, 202, 203. 
Elmore v. Rugely, 62, 741. 
Elmwood Township v. Many, 1525. 
Elson V. Denny, 1243. 
Elting V. Brinkerhoff, 1571. 
Elwell V. Dodge, 394 416. 

V. Puget Sound R. Co., 387. 
V. Tatum, 805. 
V. Turney, 816. 
Elwood V. Deifendorf, 1266a. 
Ely V. Clute, 94. 
t'. James, 1260. 
V. Kilborn, 81. 
Elyton & Co. v. Hood, 1312. 
Emanuel v. WTiite, 832. 
Emblen v. Dartnell, 642, 
Emerson v. Crocker, 782. 
V. Cutts, 694a. 
V. Murray, 1421. 
V. Opp, 1388. 
«;. Providence Hat Mfg. Co., 277, 

294, 400, 401. 
V. Sheffer, 164, 185. 
Emery v. Clough, 24a. 

V. Hobson, 1090, 1587, 1589. 

V. Irving Nat. Bank, 1730, 1731, 

1734a, 1734c, 1736, 1750. 
V. Lowe, 1966. 
V. Mariaville, 435. 
V. Vinall, 65. 
Emery Mfg. Co. v. G. H. Tiemey & Co., 

Emley v. Perrine, 742. 
Emly, Ex parte, 360. 
V. Lye, 350, 739. 
Emmatt v. Kearns, 1766. 
Emmett v. Tattenham, 1192a, 1199. 
Emmons v. Meeker, 143. 
Emory i'. Clough, 26a. 
Empire i'. Darlington, 1536. 
Empire Mut. Annuity & Life Ins. Co. 

t^. Avery, 769. 
P^mpire Trans. Co. v. Steele, 1731. 
Emporia Nat. Bank v. Shotwell, 139, 

Endora Min. & Co. v. Barclay, 74. 
Engelbert v. Taylor, 1227. 
Englehart v. Peoria Plow Co., 282. 
English V. Darley, 1305, 1307, 1326, 
V. Schlesinger, 68a, 790, 793a. 
V. Trustees, 425. 
V. Wafles, 8346. 
V. Wall, 454, 481, 1073. 
English & Scottish American Mortg. & 
Inv. Co. V. Globe Loan & Trust 
Co., 403. 
Enneking v. Woebkenberg, 63. 
Ennis v. Reynolds, 9956. 

Enterprise Brewing Co. v. Canning, 

176, 703. 
Enthoven v. Hoyle, 102, 148. 
Entwistle, In re, 110. 
Epler V. Funk, 725, 1436. 
Eppens V. Forbes, 7136. 
Eppert V. Hall, 63, 1767. 
Epps V. Dillaye, 1272. 

V. Waring, 81c. 
Epting V. Jones, 1185. 
Equitable Marine Ins. Co. v. Adams, 

694, 740a. 
Equitable Nat. Bank v. G. & S. Co., 

Equitable Trust Co. of New York v. 
Lyons, 144. 
V. Taylor, 51a. 
V. Torphy, 249. 
Eretwell v. Carter, 145. 
Erhart i;. Dietrich, 1206, 1227, 1229. 
Erickson v. First Nat. Bank, 1390. 
t;. Inman, 18, 480, 504. 
V. Roehm, 859. 
Erie Boot & Shoe Co. v. Eichenlaub, 

Erie Dispatch Co. v. St. Louis Co., 

Ern V. Rubinstein, 815. 
Ernst V. Steckman, 44. 
Erskine v. Steele County, 377, 427. 
Erwin v. Adams, 119. 
V. Carroll, 262. 
V. Downs, 592, 675. 
V. Lynn, 696a. 
t;. Sanders, 158. 
Erwin Lane Paper Co. v. Nat. Bank, 

Esau V. Green & Button Co., 812. 
Esdaile v. Lanauze, 281, 292. 

V. Sowerby, 1172. 
Esley V. People of Illinois, 101. 
Esmisten v. Herpolshemer, 1590. 
Espy V. Bank of Cincinnati, 559, 1568, 

1569, 1603, 1606a, 1661. 
Essex Co. V. Edmunds, 715. 
Essex County Nat. Bank t-. Bank of 
Montreal, 335, 1603, 1604, 1636. 
Estabrook v. Smith, 683, 1183. 

V. Swett, 1226. 
Estes V. Kyle, 884. 

V. Tower, 1209, 1210. 
Etheridge v. Gallagher, 174a, 769a. 
V. Ladd, 654. 
V. Parker, 742. 
Ething V. Schuylkill Bank, 983. 
Etna Ins. Co. v. Alton City Bank, 341. 

V. Mayor, 1223. 
Etten V. Howell, 80. 
Etting V. Schuylkill Bank, 984, 1045, 



References are to paragraphs marked § 

Etting V. Vanderlyn, 827. 
Ettlinger v. Carpet Co., 1509. 
Etz V. Place, 81/>, 1379, 1757. 
European Bank, In re, 7266. 
Evans v. Anderson, 867. 

V. Baker, 156. 

V. Cranilington, 685, 698a. 

V. Drummond, 1295, 1299. 

V. Evans, 1613. 

V. Foreman, 1411. 

V. Freeman, 81d, 688c, 700, 728, 

V. Gale, 1226. 

t;. Gee, 669, 694. 

V. Gordon, 1198. 

V. Kneeland, 1309. 

V. Kymer, 790, 855a. 

V. M. C. Lily & Co., 361a. 

V. Partin, 13176. 

V. Prosser, 1425. 

«;. St. John, 656. 

t;. Secrcst, 242. 

V. Specr Hardware Co., 792. 

V. Stuhrberg, 739a. 

V. Underwood, 46. 

V. Whyle, 1755. 
Evans, etc., Co. v. Holder, 278. 
Evansville v. City of Dennett, 1537. 

V. Dennett, 1537, 1540, 1543. 
Evansville Bank v. American Bank, 

Evansville Nat. Bank v. Kaufman, 189. 

V. Metropolitan Nat. Bank, 1708d. 
Evansville Public Hall Co. v. The Bank 

of Commerce, 394. 
Everard v. Watson, 983. 
Everett v. Collins, 1623. 

V. Sullivan, 664a. 

V. Tidball, 663, 664a. 

V. United States, 392. 

V. Vendryes, 896, 898. 
Eversole v. MauU, 725, 725a. 
Everson v. Carpenter, 233. 

V. Gere, 1775. 
Evertsen v. National Bank, 1489, 

1490a, 1494, 1496a, 1500, 1505. 
Ewald V. Faulhaber Co., 1596. 
Ewart V. Bank of Monroe, 326c. 
Ewen V. Templeton, 164, 1191. 

V. Wilbor, 572, 635, 926, 959, 1786. 
Ewin V. Lancaster, 1334, 1337. 
Ewing V. Clark, 155, 165. 
V. Clarke, 1760. 
V. Ewing, 246, 1227. 
Exchange & Banking Co. v. Boyce, 

Exchange Bank v. Appalachian Land & 
Lumber Co., 62, 866. 
V. Bank of North Am., 1622a. 
V. Butner, 824. 

Exchange Bank v. County of Lewis, 
298 422. 

V. Hubbkrd, .504, 867. 

V. Knox, 1681, 1689, 1691. 

V. McDill, 1612a. 

V. McMillan, 1326, 1328. 

V. Monteith, 284. 

V. Morrall, 1479, 1480. 

V. Sutton Bank, 1566, 1587. 

t;. Thrower, 292, 294. 

V. Tiddy, 1689. 
Exchange Nat. Bank v. Bank of Little 
Rock, 286. 

V. Coe, 831a. 

t;. Johnson, 1230. 

i;. Third Nat. Bank, 341, 413. 
Exeter Bank v. Sullivan, 374. 
Exon V. Russell, 1379. 
Eyerman v. Piron, 728, 1215. 
Eyrich t-. Capitol State Bank, 62, 3266. 

Fabens v. Mercantile Bank, 324, 341. 
Fahey v. Eastcrley Machine Co., 203. 
Fair v. Cranston, 267. 
Fairbanks v. Sargent, 1487. 

V. Snow, 857. 
Fairchild v. Adams, 1187, 1188. 

«;. Feltman, 4976. 

t;. Holly, 1253. 

V. Ogdensburgh, etc., R. Co., 424, 
Faircloth-Byrd Mercantile Co. v. At- 
kinson, 4976, 504. 
Fairclough v. Pavia, 726a. 
Fairex v. Bier, 1503, 1506. 
Fairfield i^. Adams, 687, 1195. 
Fairlee v. Herring, 503, 504a, 510, 552, 

Fairley v. Roch, 1254. 
Fairly v. Nash, 292, 305. 
Fairthorne v. Blaquire, 243. 
Faison v. Grandy, 807. 
Faith V. Richmond, 361, 362. 
Fake v. Eddy, 919. 
Falconer v. Railroad Co., 1524. 
Fales V. Russell, 1478, 1480. 
Falk V. Moebs, 410, 415, 416. 
Falke v. Brule, 673. 
Fall V. Glover, 174. 
Fallows V. Taylor, 196. 
Fall River Union Bank v. Willard, 454, 

462, 463, 654. 
Falsken v. Farington, 1625. 
Fambro v. Keith, 80, 1321. 
Famous Shoe Co. v. Crosswhite, 1651, 

Fancourt v. Thome, 51a. 
Fane v. Filler, Sid. 



References are to paragraphs marked § 

Fanning v. Consequa, 879. 

Fanshawe v. Peet, 85. 

Fant V. MiUer, 189, 867, 868, 887, 914. 

V. Wickes, 812, 1181a. 
Faneuil Hall Nat. Bank v. Meloon, 683, 

Farbell v. Sturtevant, 181. 
Farber t;. National Forge & Iron Co., 

174a, 180, 187, 758. 
Fareira v. Gabell, 195a. 
Farer v. People's Trust Co., 1786. 
Fargo V. Jennings, 1250. 
Farina v. Home, 1713. 
Faris v. Wells, 664a. 
Farkas v. Monk, 177. 
Farley Nat. Bank v, Henderson, 790, 

Farmeloe v. Bain, 1712a. 
Farmer v. Etheridge, 769a, 1713a, 1714. 

V. First Nat. Bank, 51a, 829a, 830, 

V. Manhattan Sav. Institution, 

V. Perrv, 80. 

t;. Rand, 1390. 

V. Sewall, 766. 
Farmers & Citizens' Nat. Bank v. 

Noxon, 791. 
Farmers' & Mechanics Bank v. Butch- 
ers, etc.. Bank, .391, 1552. 

V. Bank of Rutherford, 532, 672. 

V. Bennett Co., 1713a. 

V. Daikcr, 787. 

V. Farris, 1033. 

t^. Germania Life Ins. Co., 775. 

V. Hawn, 205. 

V. Humphrey, 1190. 

V. Kercheval, 370. 

V. Needles, 93. 

V. White, 1669. 
Fanners' & Klerchants' Nat. Bank v. 

Novich, 1385. 
Farmers' & Traders' Bank v. Eubanks, 
241, 247. 

V. Fidelity & Deposit Co., 271. 
Farmers' Bank v. Allen, 953. 

V. Battle, 1014, 1023. 

V. Butler, 858, 1012, 1015, 1034. 

V. Butchers' Bank, 390. 

V. Colby, 403. 

V. Duvall, 598, 658, 1039, 1057, 
1092, 1092a. 

V. Ewing, 150, 1.52, 1092, 1092a. 

V. Goddin, 1689, 1691. 

V. Gunnell, 970a, 1021, 1060, 1070. 

V. Harris, 1032. 

V. Iglehart, 1708c, 17086. 

V. Johnson, King & Co., 1566, 

V. Mutual Ass. See., 205. 

Farmers' Bank v. Oliver, 205. 

V. Reynolds, 1311, 1465, 1470, 
1479, 1695. 

I'. VaU, 331. 

V. Vanmeter, 703, 1074, 1083, 
1113, 1113a. 

V. Waples, 1103, 1106. 

i;. Wasson, 1708fc, 1708d. 

V. Whitehill, 1219. 
Farmers' Bank & Trust Co. v. New- 
land, 324, 335, 341, 342, 1245, 

Farmers' Bank of Lyons v. Dixon, 815. 
Farmers' Bank of Roff v. Nichols, 

Farmers' Bank of Virginia v. Owen, 

Farmers' Bank of Wicklifife v. Wick- 

liffe, 80, 1312, 1317, 1318. 
Farmers' Exch. Bank v. Altura, etc., 
Co., 1092a, 1109. 

V. Morse, 94. 
Farmers', etc., Bank v. Bank of Allen 
County, 1603, 1606a. 

V. Butchers, etc., Bank, 1610a. 

V. Hathaway, 793a. 

V. Kercheval, 1788. 

V. King, 1615. 

V. Rathbone, 1335. 

t'. Troy City Bank, 392, 417. 
Farmers' Loan & Tr. Co. v. Toledo, 

etc., R. Co., 1506a. 
Farmers' Nat. Bank v. Dreyfus, 1590, 
1595, 1634. 

I'. Fletcher, 834. 

t'. McCall, 62, 62a, 829a. 

V. Rasmusson, 62, 62a. 

V. Sahna Paper Mfg. Co., 1209. 

I'. Sutton Mfg. Co., 10, 62, 808, 

I'. Thomas, 142, 143, 1385, 1408. 

V. Venner, 606, 643. 
Farmers' Packing Co. v. Brown, 1713. 
Farmers' Savings Bank t'. Arispe Mer- 
cantile Co., 1312. 

V. Newton, 1227. 
Farmers' Sav. Inst. v. Garresche, 392. 
Farmers' State Bank of Solomon City 

V. Belvins, 832a. 
Farmington Sav. Bank v. Fall, 386a. 
Famham v. Fox, 782. 
Famsworth v. Allen, 602. 

t'. Drake, 139. 

i;. Fraser, 188. 

V. Mullen, 637. 

I'. Sharp, 1418. 
Famum v. Brooks, 211. 

V. Fowle, 1172. 
Farquhar v. Fidelity Ins. Co., 53. 

V. Southey, 545, .546, 1398. 


References are to paragraphs marked § 

Farquhar & Co. v. Higham, 571, 714, 

Furr V. Nichols, 156. 
V. Ricker, 717. 
V. Stevens, 1260. 
Farra v. AdamS; 1729. 
Farrar v. Bank of New York, 33. 
V. Deflime, 369a. 
V. Oilman, 392. 
V. Peterson, 322. 
Farrell v. Lovett, 775. 

V. Reed, 271. 
Farrington v. Brown, 1149. 

V. Frankfort Bank, 831c, 1266o. 
Far Rockaway Bank v. Norton, 3266, 

Farthing v. Dark, 770, 789. 
Farwell v. Curtis, 1586, 1590, 1599. 
V. Ensign, 703. 
V. Hilliard, 1203. 
V. Kennett, 56. 
V. Tyler, 1197. 
Faasctt v. BoswcU, 163. 
Fassin v. Hubbard, 700a, 998. 
Fast I'. Canton, etc., R. Co., 1750. 
Faulder v. Silk, 213. 
Faulkner v. Bailey, 12156. 
V. Faulkner, 268, 1119. 
V. Ware, 812. 
V. White & Son, 837, 843. 
Faurot v. Yates, 1340. 
Favorite v. Stidham, 1387, 1388. 
Fawcett v. Freshwater, 1317a. 

V. Powell, 815. 
Fawell V. Heelis, 1281a. 
Fawsett v. National Life Ins. Co., 698, 

Fay V. Fay, 194. 

V. Hunt, 183, 1191. 
V. Jenlcs, 713a. 
V. Noble, 382, 383. 
V. Smith, 1373a. 
V. Tower, 1317. 
Fayette County Sav. Bank v. Steffen, 

849, 850. 
Fayetteville v. Lutterloh, 640. 
Fayle v. Bird, 642. 
Fealy v. Bull, 796. 
Feamster v. Withrow, 1267. 
Fear v. Dunlap, 709, 713d. 
Fearing v. Clark, 68. 
Fearing's Estate, In re, 1703. 
Fearn v. Filica, 809. 
Featherston v. Wilson, 81. 
Federal Bank v. Northwood, 365. 
Federal Discount Co. v. Becker, 1219. 
Federal Nat. Bank v. Cross Creek & 

Pittsburg Coal Co., 386. 
Fegley v. Jennings, 1761, 1769, 1786. 
Feiner v. Puetz, 290. 

Feldmun v. McGraw, 205. 
Fell I'. Cook, 260. 

V. Dial, 996, 1147. 
Fell's Point Sav. Inst. v. Weedon, 1703, 

1707, 1707a. 
Fellers i'. Penrod, 174, 177. 
Fellows V. Cress, 1229. 

V. Prentiss, 1319, 1329. 
V. Steamer Powell, 1733. 
V. Wyman, 370a. 
Felt V. Bush, 831a. 
Felton V. Smith, 12816. 
Fender t'. Hclterbrandt, 183. 
Fenn v. Dugdale, 1238. 

V. Harrison, 278, 279, 689a, 736. 
Fenno v. Gay, 89, 1215. 
Fenonille v. Hamilton, 829a. 
Fenton v. Robinson, 848, 850. 

V. White, 225. 
Fentum v. Pocock, 1319, 1333, 1334, 

Fenwick v. Bowling, 202. 
Fera v. Wickham, 1425. 
Ferdon v. Jones, 824. 
Ferguson v. Coppeau, 1733. 
V. Harris, 248, 1267. 
V. Landram, 1545. 
V. Oliver, 203. 
v. Turner, 1311. 
Femald v. Bush, 1590. 
Feman v. Doubleday, 1317. 
Fernandez t'. Lewis, 466, 470. 
Fernekes v. Borgcnthal, 196a, 204. 
Ferner v. Williams, 644. 
Ferrel v. N. Y. Sec. & Tr. Co., 1221. 
Ferris v. Bond, 91. 

V. Johnson, 1317a. 
V. Saxton, 614. 
V. Shaw, 361a. 
V. Tavel, 797, 831a. 
Fesenmayer v. Adcock, 36a. 
Fessenden v. Summers, 713c, 714. 
Fetrich i'. Woodrow, 713o. 
Fetters v. Muncie Nat. Bank, 790, 793a. 
Feurt V. Brown, 359. 
Fidelity & Deposit Co. v. Nat. Bank of 

Commerce, 1651. 
Fidelity Loan & Guarantee Co. v. 

Baker, 197. 
Fidelity Loan & Trust Co. v. Hogan, 356. 
Fidler v. Paxton, 775. 
Field V. Anderson, 1471. 
V. Lelean, 1279a. 
V. Mayor of New York, 23. 
V. Nickerson, 607, 609, 611, 612, 

V. SchiefTelin, 271. 
V. Sibley, 606. 
V. Tibbetts, 787. 
Fielden v. Lahens, 753. 



References are to paragraphs marked § 

Fielder v. Marshall, 485. 
Fielding & Co. v. Corry, 331. 
Fields V. Fields, 62. 

V. Tunston, 724a, 725. 
Fifield V. Cluse, 122. 
Fifth Nat. Bank v. Armstrong, 336. 
V. Ashworth, 334, 1625. 
V. Central Nat. Bank, 139. 
V. F. S. S. & G. S. F. R. Co., 388, 

V. Providence Warehouse Co., 

V. Woolsey, 1343, 1772. 
Filby i;. Turner, 1481. 
Fillebrown v. Haywood, 776. 
Fillmore v. Hayes, 742. 
Finan v. Babcock, 305. 
Finch V. Galighcr, 1295. 

i;. Skilton, 183, 606, 1215. 
Findlay v. Hall, 923, 1458a. 

V. Pott, 62. 
Findley v. Hill, 1319. 
Fine v. Highbridge M. E. Church, 1197. 
Fini'gan v. Green, 815. 
Finger v. McCaughey, 1458a. 
Fink I'. Chambers, 163. 

V. Fox, 179. 
Finkney i'. Roynous, 200. 
Finley v. Green, 707, 719. 
Finleyson v. International Harvester 

Co. of America, 62a. 
Finney v. Bennett, 1691. 
V. Callcndar, 69, 70. 
V. Shirley, 39. 
Fiore v. Ladd & Tilton, 141. 
Fire Ins. Co. v. Memphis, etc., R. Co., 

Fireman's Ins. Co. v. Ely. 384. 
First Muni(;ipulity v. Orleans Theater 

Co., 1551, 7562. 
First Nat. Bank, Ex parte, 361. 
First Nat. Bank v. Abilene Hotel Co., 
V. Adamson, 1090, 1788. 
t;. Alexander, 52, 61, 156. 
V. American Bangor Slate Co., 

V. Am. Exch. Nat. Bank, 139, 

i;. Anderson, 679, 769a, 775, 812. 
V. Andrews, 834. 
t'. Babcock, 62, 713c. 
V. Badham, 51a, 62a. 
V. Bank of Wyndmere, 1655a. 
V. Bensley, 508. 
V. Bentley, 827. 
t;. Bevin, 802. 
V. Bickel, 189, 714. 
V. Bradley, 1789. 
V. Briggs, 959. 

First Nat. Bank v. Buckhannon Bank, 
1592, 1625. 
V. BuUard, 1296. 
V. Busch, 831a. 
V. Buttery, 47. 
t;. Bynum, 62. 
V. Canatsey, 62, 62a. 
t;. Carpenter, 369. 
V. Carson, 60, 1385. 
V. Case. 1266a. 
V. Cecil, 94, 1312, 1318. 
V. Chaffin, 1220. 
V. ChUsom, 1230. 
t;. City Bank, 328a, 341. 
V. City Nat. Bank, 669, 1657. 
V. Clark, 496, 551a, 560, 1704. 
V. Coates, 16a, 20, 1643. 
V. Collins, 262. 

V. Commercial Sav. Bank, 503. 
V. Cook, Treaa., 420. 
V. CouncQ Bluffs W. Wks. Co., 

V. County Comrs., 1505, 1506. 
V. Crabtree, 1734a. 
t'. Craig, 341. 
V. Crittenden, 6.56. 
t; Curr 1594. 

i'". Currie, 1587, 1.596, 1604, 1608. 
V. Davis, 340e. 
r. Dawson, 790, 819. 
V. Day, 1291. 
V. Deal, 851. 
V. Dean, 769a. 
V. Dubuque St. Ry. Co., 16a, 18, 

20, 54. 
V. Ege, 1734, 1737. 
V. Emmitt, 810, 812. 
V. Engebret.son, 187. 
V. Falkenham, 62, 664, 1095. 
V. Farmers' & Mechanics' Bank, 

669a, 672, 837. 
V. First Nat. Bank, 672, 698, 698d, 

13.59, 1612, 1655. 
t.. Fourth Nat. Bank, 329, 330, 

345, 1590. 
V. Fowler, 94, 832a. 
t'. Freeman, 357. 
V. Fults, 358a. 
V. Gaines, 205. 
V. Gay, 62, 282, 299, 316. 
r. German Bank, 341, 343. 
V. Graham, 286a. 
V. Grant, 726, 786. 
t;. Greenville Nat. Bank, 1611a. 
V. Gregg, 196a. 
v. Gridley, 549, 672, 684, 9956, 

1091, 1266. 
V. Grignon, 356. 
V. Guardian Co., 713a. 
V. HaU, 326a, 417, 849a, 1406. 


References are to paragraphs marked § 

First Nat. Bank v. Harris, 1227, 1312, 

1571, 1634. 
V. Hartman, 1140. 
V. Harvey, 815. 
V. Hatch, 462, 960, 972, 983. 
V. Henry, 184. 
V. Hischkwitz, 240, 250. 
V. Hogan, 392a. 
V. Home Ins. Co., 482. 
V. Hunt, 5, 88. 
V. Johns, 775, 812, 850. 
V. Johnston, 827, 1309. 
V. Keith, 1643, 1638, 1731a, 

V. Kingsley, 70. 
V. Larsen, 62. 
V. Latton, 850, 852. 
V. Laughhn, 1395, 1410a. 
V. Leach, 1603, 1604. 
V. Leavitt, 1317. 
V. Leeper, 775. 
V. Lierman, 849. 
V. Lightner, 51. 
V. Lillard, 1311. 
V. Littleficld, 1266. 
V. Lockstitch Fence Co., 713a. 
V. Lowther-Kaufman Oil & Coal 

Co., 1203. 
V. Loyhed, 299, 802, 1200. 
V. McAUister, 627. 
V. McAndrews, 1731. 
V. McConnell, 1480, 1586, 1623. 
V. McCuUough, 418, 664a. 
V. Marlow, 62. 
V. Maxfield, 1236. 
V. Miller, 62a, 1041, 1457, 1590, 

f. Mineral Farm Consol. Min. 

Co., 51a, 156, 783. 
V. Missouri Coal Co., 387. 
V. Moore, 741, 819, 1181a. 
V. Morgan, 368, 1266a. 
V. Morris, 868. 

V. Mount Tabor, 1500, 1509&. 
V. Needham, 783, 1633. 
V. Newton, 1266. 
V. Nordstorm, 54, 1398. 
V. Northern Pac. R. Co., 1740a. 
V. Northwestern Nat. Bank, 1364, 

1365, 1372. 
V. Nugent, 81a. 
V. Ocean Nat. Bank, 286a. 
V. O'Connell, 1278a. 
V. Owen, 600. 
V. Parsons, 319. 
V. Payne, 130, 707a, 713a. 
V. Peace, 1618, 1655. 
V. Pearsall, 7796. 
V. Peck, 1372a, 1499&. 
V. Pennington, 769a. 

First Nat. Bank v. Plankinton, 207, 

V. Price, 617. 

V. Remman, 720a. 

V. Reno County Bank, 336, 338, 
344, 698, 698d, 1338. 

V. Ricker, 1655, 1657. 

t;. Ruddock Co., 108. 

V. Ryerson, 970,990, 1106. 

V. Security Nat. Bank, 725, 796, 
1702, 1702a. 

V. Shaw, 1219, 1351, 1734a. 

V. Sheiner, 1140. 

V. Shue, 769a. 

V. Skeen, 43. 

V. Slaughter, 62. 

V. Smith, 803, 808. 

V. Sprague, 324, 341, 342, 1734a. 

V. Stadden, 357, 368. 

V. State Bank, 1369, 1661. 

V. Strauss, 831a. 

V. Turner, 207, 1252. 

V. Wallis, 403. 

V. Watkins, 81c. 

V. Watt, 1311. 

V. Wells, 1092, 1266a. 

V. Werst, 832a. 

V. Weston, 365, 775, 1150. 

V. Whitman, 1636, 1636a. 

V. Whitmore, 500. 

t;. Wilbem, 1309. 

V. Wilder, 1478, 1480. 

V. Wilkesbarre Lace Mfg. Co., 

t;. Willis, 403. 

V. Winnebago County Aggr., etc., 
Assoc, 292, 319, 1760. 

V. Wood, 181, 725, 833, 1003, 1032, 

V. Woolery, 833. 
First Nat. Bank of Angelica v. Hale, 

First Nat. Bank of Bellefonte v. Rogers, 

First Nat. Bank of Birmingham v. First 

Nat. Bank of Newport, 324, 327, 

328, 329, 388. 
First Nat. Bank of Black River Falls v. 

Jones, 1312. 
First Nat. Bank of Butte v. Weiden- 

beck, 1398. 
First Nat. Bank of Cameron v. Stanley, 

7956, 803, 8156, 849, 850. 
First Nat. Bank of Central City v. 

Hummel, 1612a. 
First Nat. Bank of Chattanooga v. 
Behan, 1226. 

V. Reid, 205. 
First Nat. Bank of Chicago v. Dean, 

V. Elgin, 427. 



References are to paragraphs marked § 

First Nat. Bank of Cottage Grove v. 

Bank of Cottage Grove, 1236, 

1567, 1657. 
First Nat. Bank of Council Bluffs v. 

Moore, 775. 
First Nat. Bank of CrawfordsviUe v. 

First Nat. Bank of Lafayette, 

1361, 1362, 1372. 
First Nat. Bank of Creede v. Miner 

et al., 1266c. 
First Nat. Bank of Dalton v. Black, 

177, 179. 
First Nat. Bank of Decatur v. Johnson, 

First Nat. Bank of Dubuque v. Mc- 

Kibben, 812. 
First Nat. Bank of Durand v. Shaw, 

802, 1354, 1754. 
First Nat. Bank of Elgin, 111., v. Rus- 
sell, 776. 
First Nat. Bank of Elkhart v. Arm- 
strong, 336, 340d. 

V. Osborne, 443a. 
First Nat. Bank of El Paso v. Miller, 

First Nat. Bank of Etowah, Tenn., v. 

Mcsscr, 688, 812, 1181a. 
First Nat. Bank of Fall City v. Edgar. 

First Nat. Bank of Farmersville v. 

Greenville Bank, 28. 
First Nat. Bank of Fort Scott v. Elliott, 

First Nat. Bank of Frankfort v. Bremer, 

First Nat. Bank of Gadsden t-. Sproull, 
800, 810, 812. 

V. Winchester, 377. 
First Nat. Bank of Grafton v. Bab- 

bidge, 284, 790. 
First Nat. Bank of Hutchinson v. 
Lightncr, 50, 51. 

V. Mclnturff, 1252. 
First Nat. Bank of Indianapolis v. New, 

278, 1221. 
First Nat. Bank of Lancaster v. Hart- 
man, 109.5a. 
First Nat. Bank of Lapeer v. Sanford, 

First Nat. Bank of Litchfield v. Cox, 

First Nat. Bank of Madison v. Sprout, 

First Nat. Bank of Marshalltown 

V. Marshalltown State Bank, 
First Nat. Bank of Meadville r. Fourth 

Nat. Bank, 3.30. 
First Nat. Bank of Mexico v. Ragsdale, 


First Nat. Bank of Milan v. Wells, 157, 

First Nat. Bank of Minneapolis v. 

City Bank of Holyoke, 698d. 
First Nat. Bank of Mishawaka v. Stapf, 

1326, 1702, 1706. 
First Nat. Bank of Mt. Vernon v. 

First Nat. Bank of Lincoln, 672. 
First State Bank of Montgomery v. 

Schatz, 1317a, 1319. 
First Nat. Bank of New York v. Morris, 

First Nat. Bank of Omaha v. First Nat . 
Bank, 333, 334. 

t;. WTiitmore, 465, 598, 
First Nat. Bank of Petersbiu-g v. Beach, 

199a, 742. 
First State Bank of Pleasant Dale v. 

Borchers, 775. 
First Nat. Bank of St. Cloud v. Lang, 

First Nat. Bank of San Francisco v. 

Golden, 59. 
First Nat. Bank of Scribner v. Colder, 

First Nat. Bank of Sibley, Iowa, v. 

Doeden, 879. 
First Nat. Bank of Snohomish v. Sulli- 
van, 51. 
First Nat. Bank of Springfield v. Haul- 

enbeck, 7.58, 791, 855a. 
First Nat. Bank of Stanford v. Mat- 

tingly, 1309. 
First Nat. Bank of Starksville v. 

Meyer & Co., 1731, 1734a, 1734c. 
First Nat. Bank of Syracuse v. N. Y. 

C. & H. R. R. Co., 1731a. 
First Nat. Bank of Union Mills v. 

Clark, 16.36. 
First Nat . Bank of Vicksburg v. Mayer, 

First Nat. Bank of Wilkes-Barre v. 

Bamum, 1378, 1409. 
First Nat. Bank of York v. Diehl, 1326. 
First State Bank v. Morton, 203. 
First State Bank of Corwith v. Ham- 
mond, 775. 

r. Williams, 183, 13526. 
First State Sav. Bank t'. Webster, 143. 
Firth V. Thrush, 992. 
Fischl V. State, 1344. 
Fish V. First Nat. Bank, 672, 673. 

v. Jackman, 1034. 
Fishbum i'. Londerhausen, 1181a. 
Fisher v. Bcckwith, 462. 

V. Bradford, 63a, 1201. 

V. Briscoe, 156, 833. 

V. Carroll, 1480. 

V. Denver Nat. Bank, 1332a. 

V. Diehl, 688. 



References are to paragraphs marked § 

Fisher v. Ellis, 101, 1189. 

V. Evans, 640, 1017, 1030. 

V. Fisher, 164, 204, 832a. 

V. Frank, 509. 

V. Krutz, 222. 

V. Leland, 782, 789, 1220. 

V. Leslie, 36a 

V. Marvin, 1266a. 

V. Mershon, 1482. 

V. Nat. Bank, 1772. 

V. Otis, 748, 834. 

V. Price, 1095a. 

V. Promfret, 99. 

V. Rieman, 7316. 

V. Shattuck, 858. 

V. Simons, 815. 

V. Stevens, 157. 

V. Stockbrand, 1310. 

V. United States Nat. Bank, 394. 

V. Von Behren, 849a, 850, 852. 
Fisherdick v. Hutton, 1416. 
Fisher Machine Works Co. v. Leaven- 
worth, 265. 
Fisk V. Brackctt, 883. 

V. City of Kenosha, 1550. 

V. McNeal, 86. 

V. Miller, 714, 960. 

V. Rescr, 717. 

V. Williams, 156. 
Fiske V. Eldridge, 403, 405. 

V. Pratt 44. 
Fitch V. Citizens' Nat. Bank, 995, 

V. Eraser, 183. 

V. Hammer, 1310, 1311. 

V. Jones, 85, 153, 808, 815. 

V. Lawton, 403. 

V. McDowell, 741, 742, 790, 1221, 

V. Remer, 894. 

V. Sutton, 1289. 
Fitchburg Bank v. Greenwood, 700. 

V. Perley, 1045. 
Fitchburg Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. 

Davis, 983. 
Fitlery. Morris, 1115, 1116. 
Fitzgerald v. Barker, 693, 831a, 832. 

V. Noland, 1338. 

V. Reed, 212. 

V. Williams, 1084. 
Fitzharris v. Leggett, 54a. 
Fitzhugh V. Wilcox, 213. 
Fitzmaurice v. Mosier, 1233a. 
Fitzpatrick v. Hearne, 172. 
Flack V. Green, 1054. 
Flagg V. Baldwin, 866, 894. 

V. Palmyra, 1551. 

V. School District, 54a, 814, 1537. 
Flanagan v. Brown, 1290. 
Flanigan v. Hambleton, 1266. 

Flanigan v. Meyer, 69. 

t;. Phelps, 1373a. 
Planner v. Butler, 180. 
Flannery v. Coates, 333. 
Flat V. Mulhall, 504. 
Flats V. Mulhall, 891a. 
Flaum V. Wallace, 174. 
Fleckner i;. Bank of U. S., 52, 388, 392, 

Fleetwood v. Brown, 203. 
Fleitmann v. Ashley, 189, 201. 
Fleming v. Burge, 36a. 

V. Fulton, 979. 

V. Gilbert, 159. 

V. Leiper, 1387. 

V. McClain, 1646, 1648. 

V. Mulligan, 751. 
Flemming v. Nail, 56. 

V. Satterfield, 81a. 
Flentham v. Steward, 1326, 1769, 

Fletcher v. Arkansas Nat. Bank, 959. 

t;. Blodgett, 150, 154. 

V. Braddyll, 1052. 

V. Cushee, 814. 

V. Dana, 683. 

V. Dysart, 319. 

V. Dyte, 94. 

V. Froggatt, 1168. 

V. Heath, 1335a. 

V. Jackson, 1340. 

V. Manning, 1647. 

V. Pierson, 1596. 

V. Schaumberg, 686. 

V. Simms & Graham, 509. 

V. Thompson, 59, 60. 
Fletcher & Sons v. Alpena Circuit 

Judge, 1533. 
Flight V. MacLean, 130. 

V. Reed, 182. 
Flint V. Craig, 1395. 

V. Flint, 74, 668, 688a, 724a, 725. 

t;. Phipps, 164. 

V. Rogers, 600, 1209. 
Florence & C. C. R. Co. v. Jensen, 1731. 
Florence Mining Co. v. Brown, 1636, 

Florence Oil & Refining Co. v. First 

Nat. Bank, 643. 
Florence R. & Imp. Co. v. Chase Nat. 

Bank, 386, 391, 856. 
Flour City Nat. Bank v. Garfield, 19, 

V. Grover, 812, 815. 

r;. McKay, 1332a. 

V. Shire, 185. 

V. Traders' Nat. Bank, 769a, 1601a. 
Flournoy v. First Nat. Bank, 174a. 
Flower v. Noble, 769a. 

t;. Sadler, 174a. 



References are to paragraphs marked § 

Flowers v. Billing, 74. 

Floyd Acceptances, 809. 

Floyd V. Miller, 370. 

Flynn v. Bank of Mineral Wells, 802. 

Foard v. Johnson, 1030. 

V. Womack, 1074. 
Foden v. Sharp, 643, 878. 
Foerderer v. Moors, 1756, 1789. 
Foerster, Succession of, 1205. 
Fogarties v. State Bank, 1637. 
Fogarty v. Wilson, 1222. 
Fogg V. Sawyer, 737, 1676a, 1678. 

V. School Dist., 43, 43a, 769a, 
775, 1233. 

V. Virgin, 405. 
Foland v. Boyd, 1086, 1087. 
Folcott V. Ogden, 883. 
Foley V. Emerald Brewing Co., 604, 

606, 707, 1093. 
Foley-Wadsworth Implement Co. v. 

Solomon et al., 1407a. 
Folgor V. Chase, 417, 656, 657, 687, 

690, 1398. 
Follain v. Dupre, 1028. 
Follett V. Steele, 1267. 
Folhner v. Frommell, 366, 369. 
Folmar v. Siler, 81a, 1309. 
Foltz V. Mey, 760. 

V. Pouree, 683. 
Fonner v. Smith, 1639. 
Fonseca v. Hartman, 1003. 
Fontaine v. Gunter, 1418. 
Foot V. Sabin, 365, 366. 

V. Valentine, 164. 
Forbes v. Boston & L. R. Co., 1731. 

V. Cochrane, 866. 

V. Espy, 139. 

V. First Nat. Bank, 392. 

V. Marshall, 361. 

V. Omaha Nat. Bank, 1014. 

V. Rowe, 1769. 

V. Union Central Life Ins. Co., 
Ford V. Anglerodt, 508. 

V. Beech, 1291. 

V. Buckeye Ins. Co., 867. 

V. Ford, 1375a. 

V. Dalian, 1149, 1152. 

V. H. C. Brown & Co., 776. 

V. Henderson, 713c. 

V. McClung, 1084, 1588. 

V. Mitchell, 56, 927, 1702, 1706. 

V. People's Bank, 1361, 1655. 

V. Phillips, 232, 724a. 

I'. Thornton, 326c, 3346, 1427. 

V. Washington, 420. 
Fordyce v. Kosminski, 1406. 

V. Nelson, 668. 
Foreman i'. Beckwith, 741. 
Fores v. Johnes, 196. 

Foresters of America v. Olson, 183. 
Forkner v. Dinwiddle, 1431. 
Forman r. Wright, 177, 201. 
Forner t'. Smith, 1635, 1637. 
Forrest v. Safety Banking & Trust Co., 
10, 1703. 

V. Stewart, 1786. 
Forshay v. Fergerson, 857. 
Forster v. Clements, 326a. 
Forsyth v. Bonta, 1352a. 

V. Kimball, 80. 
Forsythe v. Lexington Banking & Trust 

Co., 1227. 
Fortier v. Delgado & Co., 1643. 
Fort Edward v. Fish, 1533. 
Fort Payne Coal & Iron Co. v. Webster, 

Fort Scott V. Schulenberg, 1215. 
Fortune v. Stockton, 1230. 
Forty-Acre Spring Live Stock Co. r. 

West Texas Bank & Trust Co., 

Forward v. Thompson, 96. 
Foss V. Hildreth, 858. 

V. Nutting, 883. 
Foster v. Andrews, 359, 367, 369. 

V. Balch & Piatt, 1341. 

V. Balmforth, 509. 

V. Beam, 1458. 

i;. Beau de Zart, 195a, 1103. 

V. Callaway Co., 1557. 

V. Chfford, 80, 517. 

V. Cochran, 274. 

V. Collncr, 672. 

V. Dawber, 542. 

V. Essex Bank, 286a, 1565, 1708e. 

V. Fuller, 265, 271. 

V. Hoyt, 1431. 

V. Jolly, 80, 199a, 720a. 

V. Julicn, 1145. 

V. Jurdison, 1096. 

V. Mackay, 1470. 

I'. Mackreth, 85. 

V. McDonald, 1003. 

V. Mills, 1966. 

V. Parker, 1083, 1170. 

V. Paulk, 1586, 1595. 

V. Potter, 1708a. 

V. Reduction & Mining Co., 392a. 

V. Shattuck, 139. 

V. Smcath, 1015. 

V. Trustees, 1281. 
Foster's Admr. v. Metcalfe, 665. 
Foster, Rec, v. Rincker, 325, 336, 340e, 

1245, 1625. 
Foster County State Bank v. Lammers, 

Fouke V. Fleming, 891. 
Fountain v. Anderson, 271. 

V. Bookstaver, 274, 690, 834. 



References are to paragraphs marked § 

Fourth Nat. Bank v. Cotton Compresa 
Co., 1713a. 

V. Heuschuh, 592, 999. 

V. Mahon, 573. 

V. Mayer, 3406. 
Fourth Nat. Bank of Cadiz v. Craig, 

Fourth Street Nat. Bank t;. Yardley, 

1636, 1636a, 1643. 
Fowle V. Outcalt, 1227. 
Fowler v. Allen, 68a. 

V. Atkinson, 403. 

V. Brantley, 622, 623, 788. 

V. Brooks, 1325. 

V. City of Superior, 1522a, 1524. 

V. Clearwater, 1763. 

V. Gates City Bank, 497, 532. 

V. Henden, 1052. 

V. Ludwig, 1267. 

V. Palmer, 727. 

V. Strickland, 1342. 
Fowles V. Jo.slyn, 1227. 
Fox V. Bank, 775, 7796, 787a. 

V. Cipra, 688c. 

V. Clifton, 356. 

V. Drake, 443o, 

V. Foster, 748. 

V. Hartford, etc., R. Co., 725a, 
1505, 1506, 1512, 1513. 

V. Rural Home Co., 386. 

V. Smith, 203. 

V. Whitney, 1217. 
Foxworthy v. Adams, 81a, 180, 188. 
Foyley v. Emerald Brewing Co., 89. 
Fraker v. Cullum, 1369, 1402. 

V. Little, 1369. 
Fralick v. Norton, 60. 
Francia v. Joseph, 831c. 
Francis v. Evans, 340e. 

V. Rucker, 1438, 1449. 
Frank v. Blake, 815. 

V. Butler Co., 1544. 

V. Irgens, 161, 163. 

V. Kuigler, 668. 

V. Lanier, 1369. 

V. Lilienfield, 142, 143, 145, 248, 
249, 707c, 712, 775, 845. 

V. Longstreet, 674. 

V. Quast, 792. 

V. Wessells, 47, 57, 1703. 

V. Williams, 1312, 1321. 
Frankland v. Johnson, 273, 306, 307, 

Franklin v. Baker, Exr., 1417. 

V. Browning, 717, 1090. 

V. Johnson, 403. 

V. March, 38. 

V. Twogood, 748a. 

V. Vanderpool, 1586, 1596. 
Franklin Bank v. Freeman, 1583, 1584. 

Franklin Bank v. Lynch, 496, 551a, 

560, 562. 
Franklin Life Ins. Co. v. Courtney, 

Franklin Nat. Bank v. Newcombe, 833. 

t'. Whitehead, 377, 1713a. 
Franklin Phosphate Co. v. International 

Harvester Co. of America, 205. 
Franklin Sav. Inst. v. Heinsman, 769a, 

V. Ree<l, 150. 
Franklin Trust Co. v. Philadelphia, 

B. & W. R. Co., 1733a. 
Franks, Ex parte, 246. 
Fraser, In re, 369a. 

V. Charleston, 1708^. 

V. Jordan, 1324. 
Frasier t'. Massey, 227, 682. 
Frazer v. Jordon, 1324. 
Frazer's Admr. i-. Frazer, 728. 
Frazier v. Gas Bank, 341. 

t;. Massey, 93. 

t;. State Bank of Decatur, 1373. 

t;. Troy Printing Co., 85. 

t;. Warfield, 896. 
Frayzer v. Dameron, 1177. 
Freaklcy v. Fox, 1285, 
Freeh t;. Yawger, 185. 
Fredd v. Eves, 681. 
Fred Rueping Leather Co. v. Watke, 

177, 183. 196a. 
Fredrick v. Clemens, 850. 
Frederick v. Cotton, 105. 

V. Winans, 667. 
Frederick Institute v. Michael, 247, 

740, 1311. 
Fredonia Nat. Bank v. Tommel, 7796. 
Free v. Hawkins, 80, 719, 1172. 
Freehold Bank v. Kennedy & Weight 

Co., 728, 8.50. 
Freeman v. Bailey, 271, 725a. 

V. Boynton, 455, 460, 572, 654, 
1124, 1148, 1228, 1478, 1480. 

v. Britton, 750, 762a, 763, 767, 

V. Ellison, 63. 

V. O'Brien, 1103, 1149. 

V. Ross, 88. 
Freeman's Bank v. Perkins, 991. 

V. Rollins, 1326. 

V. Ruckman, 90a, 649, 667, 748, 
Freeman's Nat. Bank v. National Tube 
Works, 698d. 

V. Savery, 775. 
Freeport Bank v. Hagemeyer, 750, 751. 
Freese v. Brownell, 90, 868, 879, 896, 

Freiberg v. Moffett, 1289. 
Freittenberg v. Rubel, 725a, 814, 819. 

References are to paragraphs marked § 


French v. Andratte, 1428. 

V Bank of Columbia, 189, 1074, 
1076, 1078, 1083, 1085, 1170. 
V. French, 196b. 
V. Gordon, 128. 
V. Grindle, 766. 
V. Hall, 271. 
V. Jarvis, 1238, 1241. 
V. Price, 1300. 
V. Talbot Pav. Co., 196. 
V. Turner, 689a, 690, 748a. 
Fretwellr. Carter, 672, 831a, 1325, 

1351, 1354. 
Freund v. Importers, etc.. Bank, IbUd, 

1607a, 1618. 
Frevert v. Henry, 1340. 
Frey v. Kirk, 875. 
Frick V. Moore, 195, 196a. 
Frick Co. V. Hoff, 164, 1760 
Friedlander v. Tex. Pac. R. Co., 1733. 
Friedman, Keller & Co. v. Peters, 

Friend v. Duryee, 358a, 764. 
V. Harri-son, 195. 
V. Miller, 196, 196a. 
V. Smith Gin Co., 1769. 
V.Wilkinson, 992, 1021, 1043, 
1051, 1053. 
Frierson v. Galbraith, 896. 

V. Williams, 894a. 
Frisbie r. Larncd, 1260. 
Frith V. Thrush, 1047, 1120. 
Fritsch V. Heesless, 69. 
Fritts V. Kirchdorfer, 995b. 
Fritz V. Kennedy, 1587, 1589. 
Froclich v. Trading Co., 271. 
Frois t;. Mayfield, 1329. 
Frontier Bank v. Morse, 1676, 1676a. 
Frost V. Tracy, 1340. 

V. Weatherbee, 1770. 
V. Wood, 292. 
Froude v. Bishop, 1312, 1317. 
Frozier v. Wariicld, 881. 
Fry V. Dudley, 56, 57. 
t'. Evans, 268, 1432. 
V. Hill, 466, 471. 
V. Patterson, 1260. 
V. Rosseau, 56. 
Frye v. Tucker, 384. 
Fuch V. Yawger, 185. 
Fudge r. Marquell, 789, 1219, 1418. 
Fuhrman v. Fuhrman, 1343. 
Fuke V. Smith, 732. 
Fulerton v. Hill, 713c. 
Fulford V. Johnson, 1268. 
Fuller V. Green, 815, 1086, 1392, 1398. 
V. Hooper, 410. 
V. Hutchings, 815, 1652. 
V. Kemp, 1289. 
V. Lambert, 179. 

Fuller r. Law, 81. ,^^„ 

V. McDonald, 719, 1091, 1093. 
V. Scott, 713c, 1788. 
V. Smith, 7316. 
Fuller Buggy Co. v. Waldron, 959, 

1050, 1227, 1266, 1623. 
FuUerton v. Bank of the U. S., 656, 657, 
I'. Hill, 709, 714. 
V. Sturgiss, 142, 843. 
FuUerton Lumber Co. v. Snouffer, 

1312, 1324. 1338. 
Fulton V. Loughlin, 185, 356. 
V. McCracken, 949. 
V. Vamey, 51, 106. 
Fulton Bank v. N. Y. & Sharon Canal 
Co., 1616. 
t;. Phoenix Bank, 1671. 
Fulton County v. Wabash & Miss. R. 

Co., 1535. 
Fulton Nat. Bank v. Goshne, 340c. 
Fultz V. Walters, 1703. 
Fund V. Lewis, 1233, 1490. 
Funk V. Babbitt, 128, 129. 
V. Hossack, 185, 679. 
Furber v. Dane, 1587, 1593. 

V. Fogler, 180, 203. 
Furgcrson v. Coppeau, 1733. 
t'. Harris, 182. 
V. Staples, 669a, 672. 
Furman i-. Nichol, 447. 
Furman Farm Imp. Co. t;. Long, 197. 
Fumiss V. Gilchrist, 385. 
Furz V. Nicholls, 69. 
Furze v. Sharwood, 983, 985. 
Fydell v. Clark, 739, 1264. 

Gaar v. Louisville Banking Co., 62. 
Gaar, Scott & Co. v. Taylor, 1311. 
Gadbury, In re, 255. 
Gadden v. Savings Bank, 333. 
Gaffney v. Bradford, 800a. 
Gafford v. American Mortgage Co., 

V. Hall, 812. , 
Gage t^. Anesilly, 83. 

t'. Averill. 769a. 

V. Jaquetn, 1732. 

t'. Kendall, 11926. 

t;. McDermid, 833. 

V. McSweeney, 90. 

V. Mechanics* Nat. Bank, 1784. 

V. Morse, 1738. 

V. Sharp, 775, 854. 
Gage Hotel Co. v. Union Nat. Bank, 

1590, 1638, 1643. 
Gahn v. Niemeewicz, 1317. 
Gaines v. Dorsett, 49. 



References are to paragraphs marked § 

Gaines v. Shelton, 60. 

Gaither v. Farmers', etc., Bank, 760, 

Galbraith v. Fullerton, 1316. 

V. McLaughlin, 815. 

V. Shepard. 598, 970, 971. 
Galceron t-. Noble, 720a. 
Gale V. Birmingham, 775. 

V. Chase Nat. Bank, 392, 1607. 

V. Corey, 1514. 

V. Kemper, 656. 

V. Mayhew, 688c, 700a, 1181a. 

V. Miller, 366, 369, 370, 371a. 

V. Walsh, 926, 930, 971. 
Galen v. Niemcewiez, 1329. 
Galena v. Corwith, 1527a. 
Galena Nat. Bank v. Ripley, 186. 
Galladiiy v. Bank of Union, 963. 
Gallagher v. Kiley, 164. 

V. Nichols, 16o. 

V. Roberts, 658, 1262, 1277. 
Gallery v. Prindle, 513. 
Galliher v. Galliher, 1435a. 
Galloway v. Bartholomew, 94, 1418. 

V. Gleason, 271, 795a. 
Gall way v. Mathew, 94, 358a, 361. 
Galveston R. Co. v. Cowdrey, 1543. 
Galvin v. Syfers, 68, 856. 
Gamble v. Hatton, 56. 

V. Rural, etc., School Dist., 1517a. 

V. Wilson, 834. 
Gambrill v. Brown Hotel Co., 296, 505. 
Gamer v. Thomson, 480. 
Gammon v. Everett, 646. 

V. Kentner, 1221. 

V. SchmoU, 508. 
Gammon Theological Seminary v. 

Robins, 24, 63, 63a, 180. 
Gandy v. Bissell, 65, 68, 1219. 

V. Weckerly, 81a. 
Gannon v. Cooke, 1266a. 

V. Northwestern Nat. Bank, 800a. 
Gano V. Frisk, 24. 

V. Heath, 1335, 1389. 

V. McCarthy, 741. 
Gansevoort v. Williams, 367. 
Gansevoort Bank of City of New York 

V. Gilday, 1266a. 
Gantt V. Duffy, 1423. 
Ganz V. Weisenberger, 8156. • 
Garden v. Bruce, 1650. 
Garden Grove Bank v. Railroad Co., 

Gardner v. Bank of Tennessee, 964. 

V. Barger, 44. 

V. Beacon Trust Co., 724, 724a. 

V. Connecticut, 1300. 

V. First Nat. Bank of Billings, 

V. Gardner, 25. 

Gardner v. Gorham, 1267, 1273. 

V. Howland, 1731. 

V. Matthews, 80. 

V. Maxey, 196, 196a, 200. 

V. Maynard, 1238, 1239, 1240. 

V. Nat. City Bank, 21. 

V. Pitcher, 1203. 

V. Walsh, 163, 1379, 1389. 

V. Watson, 1319. 

V. Welsh, 1387. 

V. Wiley, 292. 
Garforth v. Bradley, 254. 
Garland v. Jacomb, 358a. 

V. Pamplin, 249. 
Garlock v. Geortner, 1468o, 1483. 
Garner v. Fite, 68. 

t;. Hall and P^arley, 43. 
Gamett t;. Myers, 1227, 1230. 

V. Woodcock, 600, 603, 1038. 
Garr v. Louisville B. Co., 53, 62, 693. 
Garrard v. Haddan, 1405, 1406, 1407, 
1408, 1409. 

t;. Lewis, 86, 842a, 844, 1405, 
1406, 1407, 1408, 1409. 
Garrett v. Ferguson, 1338. 

V. Findlater, 573. 

V. Williams, 748. 
Garrettson v. Garrettson Bank, 54, 
867, 1567. 

t'. North Atchison Bank, 496, 551a, 
1603, 1799. 
Garretson v. Purdy, 62. 
Garrigue v. Keller, 205, 865, 867, 1266. 
Garrigus, Admr., v. Home Frontier & 

Foreign Missionary Soc, 46, 65, 

Garrison v. O'Donald, 283, 289. 
Garthwaite v. Bank of Tulare, 67, 1566. 
Garton v. Union City Bank, 1188. 
Garver v. Pontius, 62. 
Garvier v. Downie, 1114. 
Garvin v. Linton, 207. 

V. Wiswell, 104, 663a, 1469, 1496. 
Gascoyne v. Smith, 608. 
Gasco Nat. Bank v. Shaw, 1005a. 
Gaskins v. Wells, 1260. 
Gass V. Simpson, 24. 
Gaston & Ay res v. J. I. Campbell Co., 

Gate City Nat. Bank v. Thrall, 753. 
Gaters v. Madeley, 254, 256. 
Gates V. Beecher, 455, 594, 635. 

V. Eno, 500. 

V. McKee, 1773. 

V. Morton Hardware Co., 164, 

V. Parker, 551. 
Gatschell & Co. v. Foster, 800a. 
Gaul V. Willis, 752, 757, 762a, 767, 862, 




References are to paragraphs marked § 

Gaunt V. Harkness, 1219. 

V. Taylor, 1615. 
Gawtry v. Doane, 584, 1057, 1115, 

Gay V. Kingsley, 241, 686. 
V. Lander, 130. 
V. Rainey, 868. 
V. Rooke, 36a. 
V. Ward, 1770, 1789. 
Gaylard t'. Nat. Sav., etc.. Bank, 664a. 
V. Neb. Sav. Bank, 741. 
V. Van Loan, 88. 
Gaytes v. Hubbard, 47. 
Gazway v. Moore, 81. 
Gazzam v. Armstrong, 523, 524, 625, 

526, 531. 
Geary v. Physic, 74. 
Gee V. Saunders, 769a. 
Geer v. Bd. of Commissioners, 1537. 

V. Higgins, 802. 
Geib V. Reynolds, 1260. 
Geier v. Shade, 196a. 
Geiger v. Clark, 713c, 995. 
Geilfiss V. Corrigan, 1713a. 
Goill I'. Jeremy, 1041, 1044. 
Gelpoke v. City of Dubuque, 10, 389, 
391, 1497, 1500, 1513, 1514, 
1523, 1524, 1525, 1527, 1537, 
V. Quentrell, 1756. 
Gemmcl v. Hueben, 1435a. 
General Con. Assn. of 7th Day Adven- 
tist V. Mich. Sanitarium & Benev. 
Assn., 1181a. 
General Electric Co. i'. Nassau Elec- 
tric R. Co., 183. 
General South America Co., In re, 

Goneser i'. Wissner, 670, 719. 
Genoa v. Woodruff, 1513, 1514, 1537, 

George i'. Bacon, 704. 

V. Surrey, 74, 688a. 
Georgia Nat. Bank v. Henderson, 327, 

1568, 1572, 1574. 
Geralopulo v. Wieler, 9.39, 940, 941, 

Gerard v. McCormick, 282, 283. 
Gerard Bank v. Bank of Penn Town- 
ship, 1603. 
Gordnrr v. Gibbons, 1393. 
Gerhardt v. Boatman's Sav. Inst., 343. 
Gerli v. National Mill Supply Co., 80. 
Gorman v. Ritchie, 933. 
German Bank v. De Shon, 130, 197. 

t'. Edwards, 1734a. 
German-American Bank v. Carondelet 
Real Estate Co., 279. 
V. City of Brcnham, 1506, 1527a. 
V. Martin, 62. 

German-American Bank v. Milliman, 

V. Mills, 612. 

V. Niagara Cycle Co„ 1311, 1312. 

V. Scribner Lumber Co., 833. 
German-American Sav. Bant v. Hanna, 

790, 1092, 1339, 1754. 
German-American Security Co. v. Mc- 

Culloch, 81a, 203. 
German Fire Ins. Co. Bank v. Kimball, 

German Nat. Bank v. Beatrice Nat. 
Bank, 933, 1457, 1567. 

V. Burns, 654. 

V. Butchers' Hides & Tallow Co., 

V. Coors, 336. 

V. Farmers' Nat. Bank, 1622a. 
Germania Nat. Bank v. Mariner, 418. 

V. Taaks, 551. 
German Nat. Bank of Ripon v. Prince- 
ton State Bank, 737. 
German Sav. Bank v. Franklin County, 

V. Geneser, 184, 

V. National Bank, 1654a. 
German Sav. Bank of Baltimore City 

V. Renshaw, 1708(7. 
German Sav. Ins. v. Adae, 1638, 1643. 
Ger. Security Bank v. Jefferson, 1708c. 

V. McGarry, 1051. 
Germania Bank i'. Trapnell, 571. 

V. Distler, 83. 
Germania Fire Ins. Co. v. Memphis, 

etc., R. Co., 1740a. 
Germania Sav. Bank v. Town of Darl- 
ington, 1524. 
Germany v. Lawton, 80. 
Gerow V. Riffe, 50. 
Gerrish v. Bragg, 199a. 

V. Glines, 1407. 

i;. New Bedford Institution for 
Savings, 24b. 
Gerth v. Engler, 80. 
Gerwig v. Sitterly, 1274. 
Gery v. Physic, 688a. 
Gettler v. Pickett, 850. 
Getto V. Pinkert, 80. 
Getty V. Bin.sse, 1298. 

V. Srhantz, 1753, 1769, 1789. 
Gibb V. Mather, 519, 642. 
Gibbes Machinery Co. v. Roper, 812. 
Gibbon v. Coggen, 1158. 

V. Scott, 79, 159. 
Gibbons v. Railroad Co., 1523. 
Gibbs t'. Brj'ant, 1296. 

V. Fremont, 898, 917, 920, 921, 

V. Guaraglia, 714. 

V. Howard, 890. 



References are to paragraphs marked § 

Gibbs V. Linabury, 851. 
Giberson v. JoUey, 819. 
Gibert v. W. C. V. M., etc., R. Co., 

1293, 1491a, 1513. 
Gibson v. Carruthers, 1730. 

t;. Cooke, 16a, 17, 21, 22, 451, 743. 

V. Feeney, 177. 

V. Finley, 22. 

V. Hawkins, 60, 150. 

V. Hunter, 136, 137. 

V. Lenhart, 1500. 

V. Miller, 706, 712, 781a. 

V. Minet, 17, 102. 

V. Nat. Park Bank of N. Y., 802. 

V. Pari in 1304. 

V. Powell, 688. 

V. Rains, 427. 

V. Smith, 508, 515. 

V. Tobey, 1262, 1264. 

V. Wallace 1338. 
Giddinga v. Coleman, 1644. 

V. Giddings, 68, 182. 
Giffcrt V. West, 731, 731&, 733, 733a, 

Gifford, Ex parte, 1322. 

V. Fosc, 81c. 

V. Fox, 81a. 

«;. Harden, 1586, 1587, 1595. 
Gift t'. Hall, 149, 150. 
Gilbert v. Adams, 89. 

t;. Brown, 186, 240, 249. 

V. Dennis, 654, 656, 972, 974, 979, 
982, 983, 1473. 

t;. Garber, 1230. 

V. Guignon, 1734&, 

V. Iron Mfg. Co., 17086. 

t;. Manchester Mfg. Co., 1708e. 

V. Nantucket Bank, 663a. 

V. Nelson, 741. 

V. Vanchon, 70. 

V. Walker, 333, 1468a. 

V. Wilbur, 185. 
Gilbough V. Norfolk, etc., Co., 1506. 
Gilby V. Farnsworth, 1147. 
Gilchrist r. Donnell, 1003, 1031, 1115, 

Giles V. Bourne, 66, 83. 

V. Canary, 1296. 

V. Mauldin, 34. 

V. Perkins, 333, 336, 340&. 
Gilette v. Hodge, 68a, 787. 
Gill V. Cubitt, 772, 796, 1503. 

V. Gen. Iron Screw Collier Co., 

V. Morris, 205, 1306. 
V. Palmer, 978. 
Gillden, etc., Co. v. National Bank, 289. 
Gillespie v. Campbell, 703. 
V. Hester, 193, 1219. 
V. Kelley, 90, 144. 

Gillespie v. Neville, 979. 

V. Salmon, 177. 

t;. Wheeler, 713e. 
Gillet V. Bank of America, 832a. 

V. Taylor, 1312, 1335, 1338. 
Gillett V. Averill, 656, 657. 

r. Smith, 1411. 

V. Sweat, 1387. 
Gilley v. Harrell, 106, 742. 
Gilliam v. Davi.s, 1328. 
Gilliatt r. Lynch, 1429. 
Gillighan v. Boardman, 1759, 1764. 
Gillipsier. Hannahan, 1144, 1145, 1146. 

V. Wheeler, 713c. 
Gilly V. Springer, 643. 
Gilman v. Douglass Co., 1249. 

V. First Nat. Bank of N. Y., 926. 

V. New Orleans R.Co., 790, 795, 

i;. Peck, 1676, 1676a. 
Gilmore v. Bussey, 1260. 
Gilpin I'. Marley, 713a. 

V. People's Bank, 52, 53. 

V. Netograph Mach. Co., 205. 

V. Savage, 654, 662. 
Gilstrah v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 424. 
Gilstrap t-. Smith, 1310. 
Giman v. New Orleans R. Co., 815. 
Gilmore v. Hurst, 61, 79. 
Gimbell & Sons v. King, 186. 
Gimmi v. Cullen, 752, 757, 762a. 
Gindrat v. Mechanics Bank, 992, 

1007, 1013. 
Gingnon v. Union Co., 917, 921. 
Ginn v. Weissenberg, 1563. 

V. Dolan, 164. 
Ginsberg v. Shurman, 819. 
Giselman v. Starr, 67, 1181a. 
Gist V. Evans, 1412. 

V. Feitz, 1.306a, 1332a, 1334. 

t'. Lybrand, 1012, 1015, 1145. 
Givens v. Merchants' Nat. Bank, 703, 

1147, 1148, 11.55. 
Gladstone v. Throop, 1550, 1527a, 

Gladstone Baptist Church v. Scott, 

Glascock V. Smith, 371a. 
Glaser v. Rounds, 636, 1123, 1149. 
Glasgow V. Copeland, 454. 
V. Pratte, 972, 990. 
V. Sands, 257. 
Glass V. Adone & Lobit, 156. 

V. Murphy, 204. 
Glasscock, V. Glasscock, 162, 164. 

V. Rand, 175. 
Glat V. Forttmann, 326. 
Glaze V. Furguson, 1103, 1106. 
Glazebrook t-. Ragland, 1429, 1431. 
Gleason v. Henry, 13526. 



References are to paragraphs marked 

Gleason v. Sanitary Milk-Supply Co., 

V. Wright, 748. 
Gleeson v. Lichty, 971. 
Glen Cove Mutual Ins. Co. t;. Harrold, 

17G7, 1779. 
Glendinning, Ex parte, 1322. 
Glenn v. Augusta Drug Co., 1294. 

V. Burrows, 1262. 

V. Farmers' Bank, 197. 

V. Hill, 68. 

V. Porter, 76. 

V. Smith, 1260, 1267, 1268. 
Glenney Glass Co. v. Taylor, 880. 
Click V. CriHt, 121.56. 
Glickauf v. Kaufman, 713c. 
Glicksman v. Early, 974, 976, 1021. 
Glidden i-. Chamborline, 676, 899, 1148, 
1160, 1163. 

V. Hospital Life Ins, Co., 509. 
Glines V. State Sav. Bank, 815. 
Glo.ssup V. Jacob, 494, 405. 
Gloucester Bank i-. Salem Bank, 1361, 
1371, 6157, 1669, 1675, 1688. 

U.Worcester 1310, 1321. 
Gloucester Ins. Co. i'. Younger, 10a. 
Glover V. Cheatham, 69, 182. 

V. Gentry et al., 1401, 1417, 1421. 

V. Green, 1410a. 

V. Robbins, 1.385. 

V. Thompson, 1475. 
Glj-n V. Baker, 1504. 
Glynn v. Bank of England, 1475. 
Gobbin v. Scott, 159. 
Goble V. Gale, 1282. 
Goddard, In re Estate of, 557, 567, 568. 

V. Cox, 1250. 

t;. Cutts, 81. 

V. Lyman, 684, 1183. 

V. Mallory, 1739. 

V. Merchants' Bank, 533, 1225, 
1361, 1368, 1372. 

V. O'Brien, 1289a. 

V. Sawyer, 894. 
Goddard-Peck Grocerj' Co. v. McC\me, 

366, 369. 
Goddin i-. Crump, 1523, 1557. 

V. Shipley, 622, 879, 908. 
Godfrey i'. Crisler, 1260, 1266. 

V. Wingert, 1326. 
Godin V. Bank of Commonwealth, 

Godwin v. Crowell, 196a. 
Goette V. Sutton, 720a. 
Goetting V. Day, 7816. 
Goetz V. Bank of Kansas City, 174a, 
533, 1734(f. 

V. Piel, 1252. 
Gogarties v. State Bank, 1637. 
Gogerty v. Cuthbert, 721. 

Goggill V. American Exch. Bank, 1366. 

Colder f. Foss, 1197. 

Gold Glen Min., Mill & Tunnehng Co. 

V. Dennis, 386, 832a. 
Golding V. McCall, 186. 
Golding Sons Co. v. Cameron Pottery 

Co., 713a. 
Goldman v. Blum, 79, 149. 

t'. Oppenhcim, 196. 

V. Uhlman, 752. 
Goldschmidt t;. New Orleans, 422, 428, 

Goldsmid v. Lewis County Bank, 

Goldsmidt v. First M. Church, 833. 
Goldsmith v. Blane, 1016. 
Goldstein v. Winkelman, 742. 
Goldthwaite v. National Bank, 1425. 
Golinsky v. Allison, 281. 
GoU V. Fehr, 185. 
GoUaday v. Bank of Union, 1074, 

Golsen v. Golsen, 463. 
Gompertz v. Burtlett, 732. 
Gon.slin v. Commander, etc., 148. 
Gooch V. Bryant, 1418. 

V. Faucett, 866. 

V. Gooch, 179. 
Good V. Elliott, 195a. 

t;. Martin, 710, 712, 713, 713a, 715, 
Good & Co. V. Isaacs, 1738. 
Goodale v. Holdridge, 196. 
Goodall V. Dolley, 449, 1154. 

V. Polhill, 526. 
Goode V. Harri.'^on, 237. 
Goodell V. Harrington, 213. 

V. T. M. Sinclair & Co., 293, 296. 
Goodenow v. Tyler, 1260. 
Goodfellow V. Landis, 290. 
Goodin v. Buhler, 815. 

t;. Plugge, 1421a. 
Gooding v. Morgan, 1260. 

V. Underwood, 362, 488. 
Goodloe V. Godley, 600, 656. 

V. Taylor, 43. 
Goodman i'. Eastman, 1373a, 1384. 

V. Goodman, 1186a. 

r. Harvey, 774, 788, 943, 986, 
1230, 1503, 1631. 

t'. Munks, 884. 

i;. Simonds, 142, 391, 769a, 775, 
814, 831a, 1.503. 
Goodnow i^. Warren, 1000, 1001. 
Goodrich i'. Gordon, 550, 551, 561. 

I'. McDonald, 196. 

t'. Stanton, 700a, 717. 

V. Tracy, 12666, 1269, 1274. 
Goodsell V. "Myers, 229, 230, 233. 
Goodson V. Johnson, 782. 



References are to paragraphs marked § 

Goodwin v. American Nat. Bank, 1572. 

V. Coates, 1278. 

V. Conklin, 831c. 

V. Creamer, 1235. 

V. Davenport, (ill. 

V. Davis, 1342. 

V. East Hartford, 316 319, 427. 

V. Jones, 883. 

V. McCoy, 517. 

V. Niekerson, 156. 

V. Roberts, 1504. 

V. Scannell, 1714. 
Goodwin & McFarland i'. Burton, 769a, 

Goose River v. Willow Lake School 

Township, 427. 
Goostrey v. Mead, 940. 
Gordan v. Montgomery, 1094. 

V. Phelps, 919. 
Gorden v. Lansing & State Savings 

Bank, 1577. 
Gordon v. Adams, 63a. 

V. Anderson, 99. 

V. Brown, 1423. 

V. Gomila, 3266. 

V. Irvine, 730, 736. 

V. Levine, 70, 783, 1587, 1593, 

V. Mulcher, 1637. 

V. Price, 1260, 1262, 1264, 1268. 

V. Sutherland, 1390. 

f. Wansey, 725o, 1238. 
Gore V. Gibson, 214, 215. 

V. Wilson, 703. 
Gorgier v. Melville, 1504. 
Gorham v. Carroll, 1217. 
Gorman v. Ketcham, 709. 
Gormley v. Hartray, 571. 
Gorrell v. Home Life Ins. Co., 81. 
Goshen i'. Stonington, 1565. 

V. Turpin, 47. 
Goshen Nat. Bank v. Bingham, 741, 
1607a, 1618. 

V. The State, 366. 
Goslin V. Griffin, 831a. 
Goss V. Nelson, 46. 

V. W^hitney, 69. 
Gothrupt V. W'illiamson, 145. 
Gottberg v. U. S. Nat. Bank, 775. 
Gottstein v. Simmons, 815. 
Gotzian & Co. v. Heine, 1311. 
Goudy V. Gillam, 12156. 
Gough V. Findon, 25. 

V. Staats, 1578. 

V. Tindon, 63. 
Gould V. Combs, 1387. 

V. Norfolk Lead Co., 294. 

V. Robson, 1305, 1327. 

V. Segee, 777, 831c, 840. 
V. Stevens, 775, 778. 

Gould V. Town of Sterling, 1523, 1532, 

1550, 1552, 1555a. 
Goulding, Ex parte, 366. 
Goupy V. Harden, 314, 465, 466, 467, 

Govef.Vining, 1103, 1147. 
Governor v. Carter, 1672. 

V. Dailev. 272. 
Gowan v. Jackson, 471, 999, 1086. 
Gowdey v. Robbins, 1417. 
Gower r. Moore, 591, 1175. 
Grable v. Beattv, 833. 
Grace v. Adams, 1729o, 1732. 

V. Lynch, 1317, 1729a, 17.32. 
Grace NIethodist Episcopal Church v. 

Richards, 769a. 
Gracie v. Stanford, 452. 
Graff V. Adams, 812. 

V. Logue, 854. 
Grafton Bank v. Cox, 1116, 1117, 1144, 

r. Kent 1338. 

V. Woodward, 158, 159. 
Grafton Nat. Bank v. Wing, 306. 
Graham v. Adams, 56. 

V. Alexander, 180. 

V. Campbell, 305. 

V. Cox, 1646. 

V. Gillespie, 1409. 

!'. Keyes, 196a. 

t'. Larimer, 803. 

V. McGuiere, 674. 

r. McGuier, 173. 

V. Marks & Co., 858. 

V. Mercantile Town Mut. Ins. Co., 

V. Negus, 1260. 

V. Remmel, 816. 

V. Robertson, 1215. 

V. Rush, 1387. 

V. Sangston, 656, 969, 983, 1019, 

V. Smith, 780, 831a. 

V. U. S. Savings Inst., 294. 

V. Wilson, 709. 
Gramer v. Joder, 7G. 
Grammel v. Carmer, 16o, 20, 22. 
Grand Bank v. Blanchard, 658. 
Grand Chute v. Winegar, 1537, 1540, 

1541, 1543. 
Grand Gulf Bank v. Wood, 741, 748a. 
Grandin v. LeRoy, 726, 790. 
Grand Island Banking Co. i'. Shoe- 
maker, 1219. 

V. Wright, 248. 
Grand Lodge A, O. U. W. v. Young, 

Grand Lodge of Free Masons v. Wad- 
dill, 384. 
Grand Rapids R. Co. v. Sanders, 1517a. 



References are to paragraphs marked § 

Grand River Cottage v. Robertson, 

Grange v. Rcigh, 1590, 1591. 
Granite Bank v. Ayres, 637, 1118. 

V. Ellis, 1190. 
Granite Nat. Bank v. Fitch, 1237, 1260, 

Grant v. Da Costa, 108. 

V. Ellicott, 790. 

V. Ennis, 573, 1196, 1198. 

V. Hawks, 369. 

V. Healy, 916, 1454. 

V. Hunt, 503. 

V. Isett, 850. 

V. Kidwell, 831a. 

V. Mills, 1281. 

V. Norway, 1733, 1733a. 

V. Shaw, 490, 504, 505, 550. 

V. Spencer, 1108. 

V. Treadwell Co., 387, 394. 

V. Vaughan, 5, 104, 1503. 

V. WaLsh, 815. 

V. Wood, 41. 
Grapengether v. Fejervary, 248. 
Graton & Knight Mfg. Co. v. Redel- 

schimer, 292. 
Gratton Tp. v. Chilton, 1537. 
Grauel v. Soeller, 859. 
Graul V. Strutzel, 290, 611, 996. 
Graves v. American Exchange Bank, 
677, 1229, 1469. 

V. Clark, 80. 

V. Johnson, 710. 

V. Kav, 724. 

V. Mining Co., 104, 724a, 1708. 

V. Saline County, 1537. 

V. Shulman, 71. 

V. Smith, 1340. 
Graw I'. Hannah, 265. 
Gray t'. Anderson, 1598. 

V. Bank of Ky., 790. 

V. Baron, 68. 

V. Bell, 612, 996. 

V. Bowden, 39. 

V. Bovle, 197, 198, 776. 

V. Brown, 1321. 

V. Donahoe, 56. 

V. Farmers' Bank, 392, 395, 1326. 

V. Gray, 94. 

V. Merriam, 1611a. 

V. Milner, 96, 97, 486. 

V. Robinson, 807. 

V. Wood, 85. 

f. Worden, 56, 57. 
Grayson County Bank v. Elbert, 986. 
Gray Tie & Lumber Co. v. Farmers' 

Bank, 6, 187, 296, 482, 666, 741. 
Graziani v. Hall, 1341. 
Great Falls Bank v. Farmington, 422, 

434, 435. 

Greathead o. Walton, 70, 899. 

Greatlake v. Brown, 455. 

Great Northern Moulding Co. v. Bone- 

wur, 81o, 816. 
Greatorex, Exr., v. Gerish, 1646. 
Great Western Elevator Co. i'. White, 

Great West. R. Co. v. McDonald, 1729. 
Great Western Tel. Co., In re, 800a. 
Greel v. Louthain, 926. 
Greele v. Parker, 503, 550, 551, 560, 

Greeley v. Hunt, 996. 

V. People, 1522. 

V. Thruston, 1208, 1209, 1210, 

V. Whitehead, 325, 397. 
Green v. Bickford, 769a. 

V. Burroughs, 1578, 1777. 

V. Clark, 173. 

V. County of Niagara, 1630. 

V. Davies, 102. 

f. Deakin, 366. 

V. De Moss, 12816. 

V. Dodge & Cogswell, 1786. 

V. Drebillis, 88. 

t;. Farley, 1005a. 

V. Green, 234. 

V. Holway, 123, 125. 

t'. Lake, 1317. 

V. Lonthain, 725a. 

V. McAuley, 1191. 

V. Neal, 1525. 

V. Raymond, 508, 515, 616. 

V. Sarminto, 875. 

V. Shepherd, 1760. 

V. Sizer, 169. 

V. Skcll, 303. 

V. Skinner, 1335a. 

V. Sneed, 1373. 

V. Spires, 62a. 

V. Steer, 667. 

V. Van Buskirk, 907. 

V. Wilkie, 847, 848, 849. 

V. Young, 1770a. 
Green Co. v Shortell, 1538, 1542. 
Green County Bank v. Chapman, 835. 
Greenbaum v. Megibben, 1747a. 
Greene v. Beckner, 1373. 

V. Duncan, 517. 

V. Farley, 1005a, 1007. 

V. Holway, 122. 
Greene County v. Daniel, 1508a. 
Greenfield Bank v. Crafts, 1351, 1352a. 
Greenfield Sav. Bank v. Stowell, 1373, 

1373a, 1406, 1407a. 
Greenfield's Est., 849a. 
Greenhow v. Boyle, 145. 
Greening, Ex parte, 744. 

V. Patten, 1221. 



References are to paragraphs marked § 

Greenough v. McClelland, 1334, 133G. 

V. Smcad, 455, 712, 715. 
Greonshiolds v. Crawford, 1218. 
Greenslade v. Dower, 355, 358a. 
Grecnstreet v. Carr, 1470. 
Greenville v. Ormand, 790. 
Greenwalt v. McDowell, 1327. 
Greenway, Ex parte, 1475, 1476, 1479. 

V. Orthwein, 824. 

V. Williams, 790. 
Greenwell v. Haydon, 782. 
Greenwich Bank v. Do Groot, 1008, 

V. Oppcnheim, 185. 
Greenwich Ins. Co. v. Oregon Imp. Co., 

1587, 1623. 
Greer v. La Fayette, 833. 

V. Laws, 1623. 

V. Perkins, 1669, 1685. 
Greeser v. Sugar man, 769a. 
Gregg V. George, 1587. 

V. Union Nat. Bank, 1702o. 

V. Weston, lOo. 
Gregory v. Allen, 1091. 

V. Higgins, 800a. 

V. Lee, 226. 

V. Leigh, 262, 403. 

V. McCormic, 156. 

V. McXealy, 1192. 

V. Merchants Nat. Bank, 1636. 

V. Paul, 245. 

V. Sturgis Nat. Bank, 698d. 

V. Thomas, 1266. 

V. Walcup, 529. 

V. Wendell, 195a. 
Grenaux v. Wheeler, 775, 796, 814. 
Grenier v. Ulery, 93. 
Gresham v. Morrow, 207. 

V. Ragsdale, 174a. 
Greusel v. Hubbard, 7076, 713a. 
Grew V. Burditt, 1437. 
Grey v. Cooper, 93, 227, 682. 
Gribben v. Clement, 1339. 
Grier v. Irwin, 1788. 
Grierson i'. Sutherland, 97. 
Griffin v. Central Bank, 1682. 

V. Chase, 326. 

V. Chriswisser, 196a. 

V. City Bank, 1506. 

V. Colonial Bank, 369. 

V. Goff, 598, 1163. 

V. Harris, 1217. 

V. Hasty, 724a. 

V. Kemp, 1587, 1592, 1600. 

V. Long, 1266. 

V. Ranney, 122. 
Griffith V. Burden, 1533. 

V. Conway, 724a, 725a. 

V. Cox, 1376. 

V. Lewin, 812, 1200, 1227. 

Griffith V. Osawkee Township, 1522. 

V. Reed, 95, 1236. 

V. Shipley, 815. 

V. Short, 204. 

V. Sitgreaves, 177, 1309. 
Griffiths I'. Hcrzog, 7136. 

i-. Kellogg, 849. 

V. Owen, 1270, 1272. 

V. Perry, 17126. 
Griggs V. Corson, 53. 
Grimes v. Hillenbrand, 197. 

V. Ililliary, 1227, 1470. 

V. Piersol, 694o, 1390. 

V. Tait, 899, 1171. 

V. Talbot, 1470. 
Grimshaw v. Bender, 867, 878, 1438. 
Grimison v. Russell, 41. 
Grimstead v. Briggs, 1401. 
Grinman v. Walker, 1016. 
Grinnell t;. Hill, 193. 

V. Suydam, 1636. 
Grissom v. Commercial Bank, 326a, 

Griswald v. Buechle, 804. 

V. Davis, 65, 824, 1233. 

V. Slocum, 709. 

V. Waddington, 216, 222, 678a, 
Griswold, Hallette & Pearsons v. 

Davis, 7796, 1230. 
Grizewood v. Blair, 195a. 
Grocer Co. v. Bank, 1636, 1636a. 
Grocers' Bank v. Penfield, 185, 791, 

Groesbeck v. Marshall, 196a. 
Grommes v. Sullivan, 381. 
Grooms v. Oliff & Co., 769a. 
Gross, In re, 1612a. 

V. Arnold, 63. 

V. Bennington, 156, 741, 795. 

V. Steinle, 1316. 
Grosvenor v. Stone, 998, 1076. 
Grover v. Grover, 24, 1181a. 
Groves v. Ruby, 668. 

V. Sentell, 94. 
Grubbs v. Barber, 203. 
Grudgeon v. Smith, 983. 
Gruenther v. Bank of Monroe, 1645. 
Grumback v. Hirsch, 534. 
Grutacup v. Frisbie, 53. 

V. Woulloise, 53, 54, 1453, 1454. 
Guarantee & Trust Co. v. Haven, 535, 

Guaranty Trust Co. v. Grotrian, 509. 
Guckian v. Newbold, 787. 
Guelich v. National State Bank, 341. 
Guerguin v. Boone, 1317, 1326. 
Guerin v. Patterson, 812. 
Guernsey v. Imperial Bank of Canada, 

899, 908, 910. 

References are to paragraphs marked § 


Guernsey v. Marks, 1339. 
Guidon v. Robson, 1182. 
Guigom V. Nat. Bank, 340e. 
Guigown V. Union Tr. Co., 995, 
Guild V. Belcher, 201, 204. 
V. Butler, 1335a. 
V. Eager, 1242. 
Guild & Co. V. Conrad, 570. 
Guilford v. Sup. of Chenango County, 
1.556. „ , ^ 

Guillaume v. Hamburg, etc., I'acket 

Co., 1740. 
Guinan's Appeal, 24a. 
Guion V. Doherty, 1260. _ ^ ^ 
Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fe R. Co. v. 

Nelson, 1729a. 
Gullett V. Hoy, 725. 
Gumaer v. Cripple Tunnel, etc., Co., 
V. Jackson, 576. 
V. Sowers, 741. 
Gumbel & Co. v. Ryan, 769a. 
Cunningham v. Scott, 775. 
Gunnis v. Weiglcy, 1303, 1306. 
Gunnison County Bank v. Rollms, 803, 

Gunson v. Metz, 1110, 1158. 
Guntersville v. Jones Cotton Co., 1734f . 
Guptill I'. Home, 681. 
Gurney v. Behrend, 1727, 1730, 17346. 
1746, 1750a. 
t'. Langlands, 1219. 
V. Womcrsleyj 731a, 1269. 
Gurnsey v. Imperial Bank of Canada, 

Gustine v. Union Bank, 1322. 
Guthrie v. Huntington Chair Co., 81a. 
V. Imbrie, 408. 
V. Murphy, 224. 
Guthrie & W. R. Co. v. Rhodes, 193. 
Gutta Percha & Rubber Mfg. Co. t'. 

Cleburne, 164. 
Gutwillig V. Stumes, 725. 
Guy V. Biebend, 185. 
V. Harris, 36a. 
V. Hull, 1217. 
Gwathmay v. Clisby, 90a. 
Gwin V. Anderson, 1378, 1385. 
Gwinnell v. Herbert, 663a, 705, 714a 
Gymnasium Co. v. Bank, 7266. 

Haas V. American Nat. Bank, 795a. 

V. Hall & Farley, 177. 

V. Kansas City R. Co., 1750. 

V. Sackett, 665. .„ „„. 

Haber v. Brown, 590a, 635, 640, 664. 
Habersham v. Lehman, 696, 1195. 
Habil t;. U. S. Fidelity, etc., 1339. 

Hacker v. Brown, 203. 

Hackett v. First Nat. Bank, 1405. 

V. Reynolds, 3346. 

V. Watts, 1343. 
Hackettstown Nat. Bank v. Rea, 

Hackleyi'. Patrick, 370. 
Hackley Nat. Bank v. Barry, 868, 

Hackney v. Jones, 105, 664. 
Hadden v. Dooley, 1259. 

V. Rodkey, 664a. 
Haddock v. Crochcron, 370, 371, 373. 
V. Murray, 1124. 

V. Woods, 56. XT ij 1 

Haddock, Blanchard & Co. v. Haddock 

189, 532, 703, 710, 714. 
Haden v. Lehman, 832. 
Hadlock v. Brooks, 262. 
Haeberle v. O'Day, 504, 566. 
Haeer v. National German-American 
Bank, 7956, 799, 802, 867. 
V. Rice, 302, 412, 415, 418, 487. 
Hagerman v. Sutton, 834, 12816. 
Hagerthy v. Phillips, 703a. 

V. Baldwin, 1592. 
Hagev V. Hill, 1322. 
Haggard v. Bothwell, 1181a. 
Hague V. French, 66. 
Hahn i-. Bradley, 814, 815. 
Haigh t^. Brooks, 1766. 
Haight V. Joyce, 807. 

I'. Naylor, 302. 
Haile i-. Pierce, 418. 
Haille v. Smith, 1736, 1745a. 
Haines v. Cadwell, 81a, 183. 
V. Dennett, 1217. 
V. Dubois, 688, 978. 
t;. Goodlander, 1470. 
t'. Pearce, 1277a. 
V. Tannant, 226. 
i;. Thompson, 741. 
Hains, Admr., v. Tannant, 226. 
Hair v. Edwards, 574, 741. 

V. La Bronse, 81. 
Hakes v. Russ, 68a, 1398. 

V. Thayer, 177, 775, 7956. 
Halbert v. Rosenbalm, 1468 1468a. 
Halderman v. Woodward, 13176. 
Hale t;. Burr, 1144, 1179. 
V. Danforth, 703, 1103. 
V. Gerrish, 231, 232. 
V. Harris, 69, 185. 
V. Hitchcock, 688c. 
V. Houghton, 1522. 
V. Milwaukee County, 1747o. 
V. Wall, 222. 
Hale, Admr., v. Aldaffer, 789. 
Haley v. Congdon, 725. 

V. Vandiver, 1373, 1395. 



References are to paragraphs marked § 

Ilalford V. Cameron's Coalbrook, etc., 

Co., 387. 
Flulifax V. Lyle, 535. 
Hall V. Allen, 643, 812. 

V. Appel, 1245. 

V. Auburn Turnpike Co., 386. 

V. Bank of the State, 324. 

V. Bradbury, 305. 

V. Capital Bank, 532, 1312. 

V. Coats, 725a, 

V. Featherstone, 815, 817. 

V. FuUer, 1408, 1658. 

V. Grayson County Nat. Bank, 

V. Hale, 775. 

V. Henderson, 187. 

V. Jameson, 271. 

V. Keese, 173. 

V. Keller, 1226. 

V. Mayo, 1733. 

V. McHenry, 1387. 

V. Milwaukee Dock Co., 1714. 

V. Mobile & M. R. Co., 748, 1281, 

V. Newcomb, 709, 713d, 715. 

V. New Farmers' Bank's Tr., 254. 

V. Phelps, 112, 1220. 

V. Railway Co., 1623. 

V. Rodgers, 1763. 

V. Shorter, 128, 130. 

«;. Smith, 361, 611, 1613. 

V. Tafts, 100. 

V. Toby, 88, 6886. 

V. Tyson First Nat. Bank, 388, 

V. Wilson, 750, 751, 752, 758, 775, 
807, 840. 
Hall & Tyson v. First Nat. Bank, 1181a. 
Hallam v. Tillinghast, 334. 
Hallenbach v. Dickinson, 1215a. 
Hallenbeck v. Hahn, 1523. 
Hallett V. Holmes, 1319. 
Halley v. Falconer, 700a. 

V. Jackson, 1092a. 
Halliday v. Hart, 1327. 

V. Martinet, 1057. 
Halliwell Cement Co. v. Stewart, 164. 
Hallock V. Jaudin, 122, 124, 125. 

V. Young, 775. 
Hallowell, etc.. Bank v. Howard, 1672a, 

1689, 1691. 
Hallowell Nat. Bank v. Marston, 1103, 

Halls V. Bank of State, 324. 
Halsey v. Lange, 724a. 
Halstead v. Bilstad, 47. 

V. Brown, 1317. 

V. Skelton, 519, 642. 

V. The Mayor, 482. 

V. Woods, 90a, 812. 

Haly V. Brown, 1116. 

V. Lane, 241, 675, 803. 

V. Smith, 196. 
Ham V. Smith, 196. 
Hambcr v. Roberts, 1218. 
Hamblen v. Folts, 12816. 
Hamblet v. Bliss, 1201. 
Hamburger v. Miller, 719, 720a, 721, 

Hamer v. Moore, 25. 
Hames v. Stroud, 769a. 
Hamilton v. Breman, 753. 

V. Catchings, 532. 

V. Cunningham, 1277, 1277a. 

V. Hooper, 1387. 

V. Lumber Co., 1590. 

V. Marks, 775, 796. 

V. Mingo Coal & Coke Co., 1204. 

V. Newcastle R. Co., 382, 383, 402. 

V. Prouty, 1317. 

V. Scull's Admr., 194. 

V. Seaman, 370, 373. 

V. Summers, 369. 

V. Vought, 775, 7956. 

V. Watson, 1309. 

V. Wilson, 795a. 
Hamilton & Co. v. Stewart, 1289. 
Hamilton Gin Co. v. Sinker, 62, 62a, 

Hamilton Nat. Bank v. Nye, 294, 1225. 

V. Upton, 795a. 
Hamiter v. Brown, 184, 790. 
Hamlin v. Abell, 740a. 

V. Simpson, 1588, 1590, 1592. 
Hammett v. Barnum, 859. 
Hammill v. First Nat. Bank, 770. 
Hammond v. Barclay, 491, 498a. 

V. Dufrene, 1076, 1078. 

V. Hopping, 207. 
Hammond, In re, 736a. 
Hammond's Case, 1219. 
Hammond, Snyder & Co. v. American 

Express Co., 598, 908. 
Hamper, Ex parte, 351. 
Hampton v. Miller, 598, 612. 
Hamrick v. Barnett, 1339. 
Hanauer v. Anderson, 1066. 

V. Doane, 200, 204, 789. 

V. Gray, 199. 

V. Woodruff, 171. 
Hance v. Miller, 694, 1195, 1788. 

V. Wabash Western Ry. Co., 1741. 
Hancock v. Bank of Tifton, 1309. 
Hancock Bank v. Joy, 252, 681. 
Hand v. Armstrong, 172, 1458a. 
Handley v. Barrows, 1385. 
Handy v. Sibley, 832a. 
Hanger v. Abbott, 218. 
Hanish v. Kennedy, 1342. 
Hankey v. Downey, 799. 



References are to paragraphs marked 

Hankey v. Hunter, 1251. 

V. Trotman, 612. 
Hannay v. Guaranty Trust Co. of New 

York, 50, 479. 
Hannibal, etc., R. Co. v. Marion 

County, 1545, 1548, 1560, 1564. 
Hannon v. Allegheny Bellevue Land 
Co., 1590. 

V. Sullivan, 574, 575. 
Hannum v. Richardson, 670, 672. 
Hanold v. Kaj's, 832. 
Hanover Nat. Bank v. Am. Dock & Fr. 
Co., 271, 795a, 1714. 

V. Blake, 1289. 

V. Johnson, 197. 
Hanrick v. Andrews, 920. 

r;. Farmers' Bank, 1450, 
Hansard v. Robinson, 1228, 1475, 1476, 

1477, 1482, 1623. 
Hansbcrger ;;. Geigher, 1318. 
Hansborough t'. Gray, 1335a. 
Hanselman v. Doyle, 1425. 
Hansford v. Freeman, 855. 
Hanson v. Crawley, 1400. 

V. Nelson, 185. 

V. Verno, 1523. 
Hapgood t'. Watson, 354. 

V. Wellington, 833. 
Hapgoods V. Barrett, 197. 
Harbeck v. Craft, 1587, 1588, 1652. 

V. Vanderbilt, 1491a. 
Harber v. Brown, 62. 
Harbert t;. Dument, 1317, 1322. 
Harbison v. Bank, 815, 819. 

V. Bank of Indiana, 815. 
Harbury v. Kumpf, 1316, 1317a. 
Hardeman v. Bank of Middleton, 359. 
Harden v. Boyce, 1060. 
Hardester v. Tate, 81c. 
Hardford Bank v. Stedman, 1005a. 
Hardin v. Olson, 62. 
Hardin County v. McFarlan, 1555a. 
Harding v. Edgecumbe, 12156. 

V. Rockford, etc., R. Co., 1551. 

V. State, 145. 

V. Waters, 7136. 

V. Wormley, 1250, 1251, 1252. 
Hardison v. Davis, 177, 1226. 
Hardman v. Bellhouse, 1289a. 
Hardy v. Boyer, 1338. 

V. Chesapeake Bank, 1370, 1655. 

V. First Nat. Bank of Newton, 803. 

V. Merriman, 382. 

V. Merriweather, 384, 385. 

V. Norton, 142. 

V. O'Brien, 90. 

V. Pilcher, 418, 487. 

V. Waters, 227, 682. 

V. White, 721. 

V. Woodroofe, 635. 

Hardy i'. Worthen, 1311. 

Hare v. Henty, 332, 601, 1592, 1599. 

V. Robinson, 195a. 

V. Wallace, 1317. 
Harger v. Wilson, 752, 758, 766. 

V. Worrall, 165, 814. 
Hargous v. Lahens, 1455. 
Hargreave v. Smee, 1755. 
Harick v. Jones, 760. 
Harker v. Anderson, 1567, 1595, 1600, 

Harlam v. Ely, 1625. 
Harlan v. Brown, 1468a. 

V. Gladding, McBean & Co., 771. 
Harley v. Thornton, 737, 1676a. 
Harman v. Howe, 86a. 
Harmer v. Killing, 235. 

V. Steele, 1285. 
Harmon v. Hale, 710, 1338. 
Hamer v. Dipple, 223. 
Harness v. Home, 202. 
Harnett v. Holdrege, 130, 707a, 713a, 

1386, 1392. 
Harpending v. Daniel, 1181a. 

V. Gray, 1230. 
Harper v. Butler, 883, 904. 

V. Calhoun, 392. 

V. Clark, 124, 125. 

V. Davis, 46, 161, 182. 

i;. Hampton, 891. 

t-. Nat. Bank, 308a. 

V. O'Neil, 240. 

V. Peoples, 729, 1219. 

V. West, 497. 

V. Young, 807. 
Harrah v. Dougherty, 703. 
Harrel v. Bixler, 616. 
Harrell v. Broxton, 782. 

V. National Bank, 815. 

t;. Nat. Bank of Commerce, 832. 

V. Parrott, 1385. 
Harrigan i-. Advance Thresher Co., 741. 
Harriman v. Hill, 1190. 

V. Sanborn, 50. 
Harrington v. Baker, 366. 

V. Brown, 85. 

V. Butte & Boston Min. Co., 775, 

V. Claflin & Co., 1506. 

V. Dorr, 726, 786. 

V. Findley, 1309. 

V. Fry, 1218. 

V. Stratton, 202. 
Harris v. Bank of Jackonsville, 1400, 
1417, 1421. 

V. Bradley, 672, 676. 

V. Brooks, 1309, 1332, 1336. 

V. Buchanan, 164. 

V. Clark, 18, 19, 21, 22, 25, 50, 451, 
455, 594. 


References are to paragraphs marked 

Harris v. Firth, 41, 196. 
V. Fowler, 832. 
V. Harris, 185. 
V. Jones, 704. 
V. Lewis, 49. 
V. Lindsay, 1267, 1273. 
V. Memphis Bank, 1032, 1033. 
V. Nicholls, 7956, 797. 
V Pate 28, 775. 

v P. h'. & 'W. D. Brandon, 193. 
V. Robinson, 991, 1058, 1115. 
V. Shipway, 1274. 
V. Tinder, 322. 
V. Wall, 236. 
V. Woodward, 262. 
Harris Mfg. Co. v. Aufinson, 62. 
Harrisburg Bank v. Meyer, 789. 
Harrisburg Tr. Co. v. Shufeldt, 1435a. 
Harrison v. Bailey, 1048. 
V. Black, 271a. 
V. Close, 1294. 
V. Courtauld, 1334. 
V. Crowder, 600. 
V. Edwards, 889, 895. 
V. Field, 1298. 
V. Firth, 805. 
V. McClelland, 262, 263. 
V. McKim, 719. 
V. Morrison, 80. 

V. Nat. Bank of Monmouth, 1203. 
V. Nicollet Nat. Bank, 1566, 1572, 

V. Pike, 1202. 
V. Powers, 70. 
V. Richardson, 209. 
V. Robinson, 1055, 1115, 1116. 
V. Ruscoe, 979, 981, 988, 989, 990, 

V. Sheirburn, 698. 
V. Smith, 336. 
t;. Stacy, 884. 
V. State, 80. 

V. State Bank of Monticello, 185. 
V. Thackaberry, 94. 
V. Walden, 193, 850. 
V. Williams, 20. 
V. Wortham, 1425. 
Harrison County Justices v. Holland, 

Harrop v. Fisher, 744. 
Harrow v. Dugan, 1189. 
Harsh v. Klepper, 1385, 1411. 
Harshman v. Bates County, 1523a, 

1524, 1535a. 
Hart V. Alexander, 369&. 

V. Bank of Russellville, 1338. 
V. Boiler, 1268, 1273. 
V. Church, 184. 
V. Clouser, 1385. 
V. Deamer, 213. 

Hart V. Eastman, 996. 
V. Hudson, 1789. 
V. Livemore Foundry Machine Co., 

197, 807, 808. 
V.Long, 1109a, 1148, 1162. 
V. McClellan, 1115. 
V. Mo., etc., F. & M. Ins. Co., 386. 
V. Penna. R. Co., 1740a. 
V. Potter, 369. 
r. Smith, 617. 
V. Stevens, 254, 257, 1184. 
r. Stickney, 787. 
V. U. S. Trust Co., 793a. 
V. Wills, 868. 
Harter v. Kernochan, 1521, 1523a, 
V. Moore, 1317a. 
Hartford Bank v. Barry, 392, 572, 624. 
V. Green, 654a. 
V. Stedman, 572, 1005a, 1039. 
Hartford F. Ins. Co. v. Wilcox, 275. 
Hartley v. Case, 983, 1036, 1235. 
V. Manton, 1290, 1291. 
V. Rice, 196. 
j;. Wharton, 231. 
V. Wilkinson, 60, 79, 151. 
Hartman v. First Nat. Bank, 1769. 
V. Greenhow, 448. 
V. Redman, 1316. 
V. Shaffer, 180. 
Harts V. Emery, 1181a. 
Hartshorn v. Hartshorn, 69. 
Hartwell v. Hemenway, 666. 
Hartzell v. McClurg, 1199, 1200, 1201. 
Harvard Pub. Co. v. Benjamin, 249. 
Harvey v. Archibald, 923. 
V. Cane, 92, 143a, 490. 
V. Effinger, 154. 
i;. First Nat. Bank, 1221, 1266c, 

1788, 1789. 
V. Girard Nat. Bank, 571, 654, 

V. Irvine, 94. 
V. Kay, 128. 
V. Martin, 499a. 
V. Nelson, 1095a. 
V. Smith, 1406. 
V. Towers, 166, 808. 
V. Troupe, 1149, 1165, 1167. 
Harvey Blair & Co. v. Johnson, 249. 
Harwood v. Brown, 80. 

V. Jarvis, 1086. 
Hasbrook v. Palmer, 56. 
Hasbrouck v. Milwaukee, 1556, 1563. 
Hascall v. Life Assn. of America, 485. 

V. Whitmore, 803. 
Haseltine v. Dunbar, 174a. 

V. Siggers, 1708o. 
Hasey v. White Pigeon Beet Sugar Co., 
424, 482. 



References are to paragraphs marked 

Haskell v. Avery, 698d, 1181a. 

V. Boardman, 1040, 1041, 1131, 

V. Champion, 1387. 

V. Cornish, 406. 

V. Jones, 199a, 797. 

V. Lambert, 60. 

V. Mitchell, 741, 745. 
Haskins v. Throne, 356, 357. 
Haslack v. Wolfe, 54, 728. 
Haslett V. Ehrick, 1043. 

V. Kunhardt, 1111. 
Hass V. Lobstein, 1312. 
Hassoullier v. Harkenck, 51a. 
Hastings v. Pepper, 1729, 1742. 
Hatch V. Atkinson, 24, 24&. 

V. Barrett, 688c, 858. 

V. Burroughs, 197, 807. 

V. Calvert, 784a. 

V. First Nat. Bank of Dexter, 1703. 

»'. Fourth Nat. Bank, 366, 1612b. 

V. Frays, 108. 

V. Gillette, 36. 

V. Searles, 147. 
Hatcher v. McMorine, 908. 

V. National Bank, 689a. 

V. Stalworth, 503. 
Hatcher & Co. v. Nat. Bank of Phila., 

Hatchett v. Baddeley, 243, 246. 
Hatchett & Large v. Sunset Brick & 

Tile Co., 357. 
Hately v. Pike, 415, 416, 717. 
Hatfield v. Griffith, 149, 150. 

V. Phillips, 1731a. 
Hathaway v. Haynes. 1734c. 
Hathorn v. Wheelright, 203. 
Hathwick v. Owen, 99. 
Hattan v. Holmes, 1370. 
Hatten v. Robinson, 1687. 
Hatzel V. Moore, 203. 
Hauer v. Patterson, 719. 
Hauerwas v. Goodloe, 69. 
Hauesslcr v. Greene, 725. 
Haug V. Riley, Admr., 664a, 729, 741, 

787a, 1223. 
Haughton v. Ewbank, 296. 
Havana Cent. R. Co. v. Knickerbocker 

Trust Co., 533, 535, 573, 789. 
Havemeyer v. Iowa County, 1523, 1525. 
Haven v. Grand Junction R. Co. 1491a. 

V. Hobbs, 299. 
Havens v. Talbott, 1105. 
Haverhill, etc., Ins. Co. v. Newhall, 

Haverin v. Donnell, 81, 517. 
Hawes v. Blackwell, 1636. 

V. MulhoUand, 156, 834, 835. 
Hawkes v. Hinchleff, 1266a. 
V. Phillips, 713o, 1760. 

Hawkes v. Salter, 1041, 1054. 

V. Saunders, 182. 
Hawkey v. Borwick, 635. 
Hawkin v. Windhorst, 183. 
Hawkins v. Cardy, 668. 

V. Collier, 174. 

V. Neal, 174a. 

V. Rutt, 1024. 

V. Shields, 611, 612, 669a. 

V. Watkins, 56. 
Hawkins, Rec, v. Fourth Nat. Bank, 

394, 748, 834. 
Hawley v. Bibb, 195a. 

V. Foote, 1260. 

r. Jette, 1170, 1771, 1172, 1276, 
1568, 1572. 

V. Sloo, 917. 
Haworth v. Crosby, 1309. 
Hawse v. Crowe, 1269. 

V. First Nat. Bank of Piedmont, 
Haxtun v. Bishop, 645, 647, 1181a, 

1685, 1691. 
Hay V. Ayling, 204. 

V. Goldsmidt, 292, 293. 

V. Jaickle, 792, 815, 819. 
Hayden v. Lauffenburger, 1221. 

V. Nicolletti, 684. 

V. Stone, 894a. 

V. Thrasher, 1339. 

V. Weldon, 713d. 
Haydock v. Lynch, 50, 161. 
Hayes v. Allen, 81c. 

V. Blaker, 357, 365, 369, 819. 

V. Brubaker, 403. 

V. Caulfield, 667, 748. 

V. Kingston, 782. 

V. Ward, 1311. 

V. Warren, 182. 
Hayman v. Lambden, 94. 
Haynes v. Birks, 992, 1036, 1039, 
1043, 1235. 

V. Foster, 282. 

V. Rudd, 196a. 
Hays V. Bank, 1567. 

V. Bostick, 193. 

V. Citizens Sav. Bank, 999, 999a, 

V. Crutcher, 403. 

V. Dickey, 573. 

V. Hathorn, 813, 11926. 

V. Lapeyre, 7956. 

V. Mathews, 1399. 

V. McClurg, 1275. 

V. MjTick, 1320. 

t). N. W. Bank, 970. 

V. Odom, 1373a. 

V. Plumber, 203, 748a. 

V. Southgate, 1192b. 

V. Stone, 1268. 



References are to paragraphs marked § 

HavB V. Walker, 199a. 

Hayward v. Bank of England, 655. 

V. Burke, 371a. 

V. Empire State Sugar Co., 571, 
1092a, 1094. 

V. French, 357. 

V. Hayward, 256, 

V. Pilgrim Soc, 383. 
Haywood v. Seeber, 782. 
Hazard v. Cole, 424. 

V. Spencer, 166, 640, 644, 649, 812. 

V. White, 1093, 1147, 1156, 1136. 
Hazlehurst v. Kean, 898. 

V. Franklin, 921. 
Hazeltine v. Keenan, 271, 795a. 
Hazleton v. Union Bank, 1702. 
Hazzard v. Duke, 721. 
Head v. Hornblower, 1604. 
Headlcy v. Reed, 1646. 
Heald v. Davis, 1227. 
Healey v. Dolson, 1266, 1312. 

V. Story, 402. 
Healy v. Oilman, 1588, 1596, 1646, 

V. Gorman, 919, 923. 
Heane v. Rogers, 1220. 
Heaps V. Dunham, 196&. 
Heard v. Bank, 689a. 

V. Dubuque County Bank, 51a, 
52, 62, 1781. 

V. Shedden, 789a. 

V. Stanford, 258. 

V. Tappan & Merritt, 1393. 
Heart v. State Bank, 1708d. 
Heartt v. Rhodes, 1587, 1623. 
Heath, Ex parte, 1077, 1085, 1170. 

V. Achey, 1312. 

V. Blake, 1373, 1385. 

V. New Bedford Safe Deposit &c. 
Co., 294. 

V. Paul, 293. 

V. Sansom, 165, 369a. 

V. Silverhorn Lead Min. Co., 832. 

V. Vancott, 713d. 
Heaton v. Ainley, 1250, 1396. 

V. Dickson, 236, 713a, 1204. 

V. Hulbert, 1781, 1786. 

V. Knowlton, 193. 

V. Myers, 157, 303, 403. 
Hecht V. Batcheller, 737. 

V. Shenners, 1375, 1377. 
Hecker v. Boylan, 741, 1227. 

V. Mahler, 1338. 
Heckman v. Manning, 1294. 
Hcddrick v. Huffaker, 1394. 
Hedger v. Steavenson, 982, 983. 
Hedges v. Dixon Co., 15556. 

V. Sealy, 741. 
Hedley v. Bainbridge, 358a. 
Heebner v. Shephard, 203. 

Heenan v. Nash, 362, 488. 
Heffelfinger v. Shutz, 1420. 
Hefferlin v. Krieger, 792, 1326. 
Hefferman v. Boteler, 1227, 1230a. 
Hefiington v. Jackson, 225. 
Hefflebower v. Detrick, 869. 
Heffner v. Brownell, 80, 403, 751. 

V. Wenrich, 1418. 
Hefford v. Morton, 1305. 
Heflfron v. Daly, 197. 

V. Hanaford, 365. 
Hefner v. Dawson, 1351. 
Hegeman v. Moon, 28, 46. 
Heidelbach v. National Park Bank, 

1425, 1612a. 
Heidenheimer r. Blumenkron, 707, 711. 
Heinbach v. Doubleday, Page & Co., 

Heise v. Bumpass, 70, 131, 713a, 1209. 
Heiskell v. Farmers, etc.. Bank, 1731a, 

1734a, 17346, 1734c. 
Heisler, Admr., v. Lyon, 156. 
Heist V. Hart, 80. 
Heitman v. Carter, 68a. 

V. Commercial Bank, 816, 156. 
Held V. Caldwell-Ea^ston Co., 186. 
Helena Nat. Bank v. Rocky Mt. 

Telegraph Co., 292, 293, 297. 
Helfenstein's Estate, 25. 
Heller v. Goslin, 896. 

V. Mois, 834. 
Hellerman v. Schwartz, 1652. 
Hellings v. Hamilton, 1676. 
Helm V. Swiggett, 1708c. 
Helmer v. Conunercial Bank, 689a, 

V. Kroliek, 43, 770. 
Helms V. Agricultural Co., 1354. 
Helmsley v. Loader, 287, 1220. 
Helper v. Aid en, 32. 
Helvie v. McKain, 185. 
Helzer v. Helzer, 1473. 
Heman v. Francisco, 91. 
Hemmenway v. Stone, 94, 1390. 
Hemphill v. Bank of Alabama, 147. 

V. Hamilton, 268. 
Hempstone & Co. v. Sarratt, 174. 
Hemrich v. Wist, 81c. 
Henchman v. Lybrand, 1282. 
Henderson v. Anderson, 1217. 

V. Case, 782. 

V. Cummings, 321. 

V. Davisson, 573. 

V. Ford, 742. 

V. Fox, 225. 

V. Holcomb, 1203. 

V. Irby, 1469. 

V. Johnson, 1437, 1764. 

V. Louisville & N. R. Co., 1733. 

V. Palmer, 196a. 



References are to paragraphs marked 

Henderson v. Pope, 1572, 1574. 

V. Shaffer, 1223. 

V. U. S. Nat. Bank, 1620, 1638. 

V. Waggoner, 200. 
Henderson Mercantile Co. v. First Nat. 

Bank, 392a, 394. 
Hendricks v. Franklin, 921, 1438. 

V. Judah, 728. 
Hendricks, Admr., v. Thornton, 100. 
Hendrie v. Berkowitz, 753. 

V. Kinnear, 713e. 
Henehan v. Hart, 159, 1312. 
Henerson v. Da\'isson, 576. 
Henley v. Holzer, 724a, 803, 1233. 
Henman v. Dickinson, 1418. 
Hennessy Bros. & Evans Co. v. Mem- 
phis Nat. Bank, 392a. 
Henry v. Allen, 802, 1634. 

V. Bishop, 112. 

V. Colman, 150, 151, 154. 

V. Conley, 1260. 

V. Gilliland, 1319. 

V. Heeb, 1351, 1352a. 

V. Jones, 626. 

V. Lee, 603. 

V. Martin, 340e, 1612a. 

V. Ritenour, 184, 185. 

V. Sansom, 752. 

V. Sneed, 784a, 799, 802, 815, 819. 

V. State Bank of Laurens, 177, 
184, 198. 

V. Thompson, 1458a. 
Henry County v. Nicolay, 1524, 1537. 
Henschel v. Mahlen, 46. 
Henshaw v. State Bank, 795a. 
Hensinger v. Dyer, 177, 857, 1352a. 
Hensley v. Mitchell, 81. 
Henton v. Henton, 182, 183. 
Hentz V. Jewell, 195a. 
Hepburn v. Griswold, 1248. 

V. Toledano, 1180. 
Heralds of Liberty v. Hurd, 1590. 
Herbage v. McEntee, 713a. 
Herbelback, Ex parte, 898. 
Herbert v. Servin, 1317&. 

V. Winters et al., 1731. 
Hereth v. Merchants Nat. Bank, 797, 
803, 804. 

V. Meyer, 51a. 
Herider v. Phoenix Loan Co., 1586, 

Herieh v. Merchants' Nat. Bank, 1394. 
Herman v. Gray, 203. 

V. Gregory', 144. 

V. Gunter, 174a, 803, 811. 
V. Williams, 1312. 
Hern v. Nicols, 391. 
Herndon v. Givens, 1470. 

V. Lewis, 710. 
Herrick v. Baldwin, 1145, 1146. 

Herrick v. Bennett, 88. 

V. Borst, 1339. 

V. Carman, 713d. 

V. Edwards, 59, 598, 688, 710, 970, 

V. MaUn, 1418. 

V. Woolverton, 608, 783, 1215. 
Herriman v. Shoman, 1245. 
Herrimann Lvunber Co. v. Bjiirstrom, 

Herring v. Kesee, 1567, 1568, 1569, 

V. Sanger, 1273. 

V. WoodhuU, 688. 
Herron v. Frost, 241. 
Herron & Co. v. Mawby, 328a. 
Hersey v. Elhott, 260, 685. 
Hert V. Oehler, 1385. 
Hertel v. Bogert, 266. 
Herter v. Goss, 508. 
Hertfelder & Cochran v. Clark, 180. 
Heshp V. Anderson, 74. 
Hesse v. Dille, 12666. 
Hestone v. Williamson, 664a. 
Hetherington v. Kemp^ 1054. 
Heth Township v. Lewis, 427. 
Heugh V. Jones, 248. 
Heuertennatte v. Morris, 163, 532, 534. 
Heuriet v. Morris, 903. 
Hevey's Case, 1345. 
Hewins v. Cargill, 1384. 
Hewitt V. Bank of Indian Territory, 

V. Goodrich, 1318, 1327. 

V. Kaye, 24a. 

V. Thompson, 1042. 
Heylin v. Adamson, 669a. 
Heywood v. Perrin, 79, 150, 154, 1410a. 

V. Pickering, 1599. 

V. Stearns, 725. 

V. Waring, 1279. 
Hibbard v. Holloway, 36. 
Hibblewhite v. McMowrie, 148. 
Hibbs V. Brown, 51. 
Hibernia Bank & Trust Co. v. Smith, 

Hibernian Bank v. Everman, 368, 7266. 
Hickerson v. Raiguell, 790. 
Hickhgg V. Hardey, 450. 
Hickok V. Bunting, 51a, 106, 161. 
Hicks V. Brown, 921. 

V. Hinde, 302, 311. 

V. Marshall, 213. 

V. Randolph, 1306a. 
Hickson v. Early, 789. 
Hidden v. Bishop, 790. 

V. German Sav. & Loan Soc, 1248. 
Hier v. Staples, 248. 
Higginbotham v. McGready, 195a. 
Higgins V. B. R. & Aw. & M. Co., 1247 


References are to paragraphs marked § 

Higgins V. Briggs, 262. 

V. Bullock, 667. 

V. McPherson, 1317. 

V. Morrison, 999a. 

V. Nichols, 642. 

V. Ridgway, 81a, 174, 189, 856. 

V. Senior, 303, 740a. 

V. Watson, 716, 1776. 
Highmore v. Primrose, 108. 
Hightower v. Henry, Sid. 

V. Ivey, 1093, 1172, 1327. 

V. Maull, 87. 

V. Mobile & R. Co., 193. 
Higley v. Newell, 76. 

V. O'Donnell, 156. 
Higley & Co. v. B. C. R. & N. Ry. Co., 

Hilborn v. Alford, 74. 

V. Artus, 663a. 

V. Pennsylvania Cement Company, 
Hildeburn v. Turner, 955. 
Hilder v. Seelye, 1476. 
Hill, In re, 777, 814a. 
Hill V. Alexander, 742. 

V. Alford, 41. 

V. Allen, 643. 

V. Barnes, 1418. 

V. Bostick, 1266, 1327. 

V. Buchanan, 703. 

V. Buckminster, 179. 

V. Calvin, 17856. 

V. City of Memphis, 422, 1532. 

V. Cooley, 1379. 

V. Coombs, 189, 1203. 

V. Denniston, 1311, 1343. 

V. Dunham, 69. 

V. Ely, 721, 722. 

V. Gaw, 80. 

V. Halford, 41. 

V. Hall, 81b. 

V. Heap, 450, 1105. 

V. Henry, 1211. 

V. Kraft, 784a, 800a. 

V. Lewis, 104, 105, 622, 663a, 669, 

V. Martin, 899, 1170. 

V. Mo. Pac. Ry. Co., 1741. 

V. Murray, 775. 

V. Norris, 1079, 1082. 

V. Norvell, 626, 1027. 

V. Pine River Bank, 1708d. 

V. Planters' Bank, 992. 

V. Shields, 699, 717, 726&. 

V. Southerland, 1250, 1251. 

V. Stevenson, 24a, 246. 

V. Thixton, 862. 

V. Todd, 54. 

V. Trust Co., 1608, 1610a. 

V. Varrell, 1030, 1117. 

Hill V. Waight, 1227. 

V. Ward, 197, 726a, 803, 814, 815. 

V. Whidden, 163. 

V. Wilker, 891, 891a. 
Hillard v. Taylor, 789a, 803, 812. 
Hillegas /'. Stephenson, 703. 
Hillenbrand v. Shippen, 183. 
Hillman v. Stanley, 643. 
Hill Man. Co. v. Providence, etc. 

Steamship Co., 1740a. 
Hills V. Banister, 271. 

V. Place, 643. 
Hilsingcr v. Georgia R. Bank, 1707. 
Hilton V. Houghton, 69. 

V. Shepherd, 987, 1067, 1125. 
Himmelman v. Hotaling, 612, 783, 

1590, 1634. 
Himrod v. Gillman, 834. 
Hinckley v. Merchants' Bank, 1461, 
1470, 1505. 

V. Pfister, 1339, 1533. 

V. Union P. R. Co., 782, 1461, 
1470, 1478, 1500, 1505. 
Hindlaugh v. Blakey, 4976, 504. 
Hindley v. Marean, 886. 
Hine v. AUely, 1036, 1119, 1235. 
Hinely v. Margaritz, 234, 235. 
Hines v. Patterson, 1468a. 
Hinesburgh v. Summer, 196. 
Hines Supply Company v. Parker, 

Hinkley v. Fourth National Bank, 

Hinsdale v. Bank of Orange, 1478, 
1479, 1482, 1693, 1695. 

V. Jerman, 156. 

V. Larned, 1685. 

V. Miles, 1464. 
Hinsdill v. Safford, 800a. 
Hinton v. Bank of Columbus, 532. 

V. Duff, 1209. 

V. Jones, 787. 
Hipp V. Fidelity Mut. Life Ins. Co., 

635, 1398. 
Hipp & Co. V. So. R. Co., 1731a. 
Hireen v. R. W. English Lumber Co., 

Hirsch v. Kaufman, 719. 
Hirschfield v. Smith, 1390. 

V. Ludwig, 16a. 
Hisford v. Stone, 104. 
Hitchcock V. Buchanan, 411. 

V. City of Galveston, 1520. 

V. Sawyer, 124. 
Hitchings v. Edmunds, 89. 

V. St. Louis, etc., Company, 293, 
Hixon V. Hetherington, 186. 
Hoag V. Nanstad, 177. 

V. Town of Greenwich, 394, 1537. 



References are to paragraphs marked 

Hoagland v. Erck, 50. 
Hoar V. Da Costa, 655. 
Hoare v. Cazenove, 521, 527. 

V. Graham, 79, 159, 517, 719. 
Hobart v. Dodge, 89. 

V. Penny, 769a. 
Hobart Nat. Bank v. McMurrough, 

Hobbs V. Chemical Nat. Bank, 960, 
961, 962, 964. 

V. Straine, 1016. 
Hobson V. Davidson, 1266. 

V. Hassett, 185, 403. 

V. Marsh, 183. 
Hochmark v. Richler, 1294, 1389. 
Hocknell v. Sheley, 1410o. 
Hodge V. Farmers Bank of Frankfort, 
Ind., 417, 1373, 1387. 

V. Mason, 203. 

V. Smith, 68a, 193, 7796, 7816, 
789a, 815, 819, 838. 

V. Wallace, 787. 
Hodgens v. Jennings, 1202. 
Hodges V. Black, 832. 

V. City of Buffalo, 1519a. 

V. Eastman, 112. 

V. Elyton Land Co., 1322. 

V. First Nat. Bank, 395. 

«;. Gait, 1029a. 

V. Hunt, 233. 

V. Nash, 726, 786, 790. 

V. Runyan, 443a. 

V. Shuler, 52, 156, 976, 977. 

V. Steward, 104, 663a. 

V. Traux et al., 193, 1289. 
Hodges' Exr. v. First Nat. Bank, 393. 
Hodgin V. Bank, 3266. 
Hodgson V. Dexter, 445, 1564. 

V. Shaw, 1236. 
Hodson V. Eugene Glass Co., 779, 796, 

Hoey V. Jarman, 1418. 
Hofer V. Cowan, McClung & Co., 69. 
Hoff V. Baldwin, 1056. 
Hoffecker v. Moon, 1203. 
Hoffman v. American Exch. Bank, 

V. Butler, 1332a, 1389. 

V. First Nat. Bank, 336. 

V. Foster, 726. 

V. Hollingsworth, 925, 926, 1144. 

V. Molly, 1411. 

V. Planters' Nat. Bank, 1390. 

V. Smith, 1082. 
Hoffman & Co. v. Bank of Milwaukee, 

174a, 175, 479, 533, 534, 803. 
Hofheimer v. Loesen, 995. 
Hofrichter v. Enyeart, 455, 572, 991. 
Hogan V. Brown, 205. 

V. Cuyler, 615. 

Hogan V. Globe Mut. B. & L. Assoc, 

V. Kaiser, 1623. 

V. Moore, 803. 
Hogarth v. Latham, 367. 
Hoge V. Lansing, 753a. 

V. Wilson, 1566, 1567. 
Hogg V. Skene, 369. 

V. Snaith, 292, 293. 

V. Thurman, 199a, 769a, 777, 789a, 
807, 815. 
Hogshead v. Williams, 1341. 
Hogue V. Davis, 703. 
Hoil V. Rathbone, 1481. 
Hoit V. Underbill, 233. 
Holbrook v. Basset, 385. 

V. Camp, 713c. 

V. Lackey, 1428. 

V. Mix, 775. 

V. New Jersey Zinc Co., 1708/, 

V. Payne, 499a. 

V. Vibbard, 899. 
Holcomb V. Wyckoff, 757, 758. 
Holden v. Cosgrove, 168, 177, 205. 

V. O'Brien, 69. 

V. Phenix Rattan Co., 814a. 

V. Trust Co., 1458a. 
Holders v. Bank of Tennessee, 1499a. 
Holdsworth v. Hunter, 114, 115, 116. 
Holeman v. Hobson, 181, 751, 814. 
Holfordy. Wilson, 1165. 
Holiday v. Patterson, 183. 

V. Sigil, 1468, 1470. 
Holladay v. Atkinson, 174, 179, 180, 

Holland v. Barnes, 215. 

V. Hatch, 1398. 

V. Smit, 800a. 

V. Turner, 1134. 

V. Van Beil, 284. 
Holland Trust Co. v. Waddell, 1266c. 
HoUen v. Davis, 86, 86a. 
Hollenberg v. Lane, 1227. 
Holley V. Adams, 25. 
HoUiday State Bank v. Hoffman, 47. 
Hollier v. Eyre, 1334, 1336. 
Holliman v. Rogers, 1342. 
Hollimon v. Karger, 339, 803, 1326. 
Hollingshead v. American Nat. Bank of 

Macon, 850. 
Hollingsworth v. City of Detroit, 1513. 

V. Moulton, 197. 
Hollins V. Fowler, 13726. 
Holloway v. Wabash Ry. Co., 1729a. 
Holly V. Holly, 575. 
Hokn V. Atlas Nat. Bank, 802. 

V. Jamieson, 1769. 

V. Sandberg, 185. 
Holman v. Gilliam, 94. 



References are to paragraphs marked § 

Holman v. Holsom, 758, 778. 

V. Langtree, 1296. 

V. Whiting, 1135, 1185. 
Holme V. Karsper, 812, 814, 816. 
Holmes v. Bank of Ft. Gaines, 891a, 

V. City of Shreveport, 1531. 

V. Crane, 1730a. 

V. F&TTia, 81a, 164, 203. 

V. First Nat. Bank, 717. 

V. Gardner, 758. 

V. Holmes, 257. 

V. Hooper, Q9Sd. 

V. Horn, 81a, 164. 

V. Jacques, 101. 

V. Jamieson, 1769. 

V. Kerrison, 619. 

V. Kidd, 725. 

V. McGintry, 748. 

V. Preston et al., 713a, 970, 1786. 

V. Roe, 1590, 1592. 

V. Seashore Electric Ry. Co., 15096. 

V. Sinclair, 94. 

V. Trumper, 1406. 

V. Williams, 1789. 
Holohan v. Mix, 812. 
Holroyd v. Whitehead, 1186. 
Holt V. Bacon, 392. 

V. Moore, 81. 

V. Ross, 538. 
Holton & Winn v. Hubbard & Co., 787a, 

Holtz V. Boppe, 455, 591. 
Holz V. Woodside Brewing Co., 713e, 

Home Bank v. Dromgoole, 41. 
Home Fire Ins. Co. v. Fitch, 1458a. 
Home Ins. Co. v. Daubinspeck, 203. 

V. Green, 978. 
Home Land Co. v. Osbom, 1181a. 
Home Nat. Bank v. Estate of Water- 
man, 1312. 

V. Hill, 852. 

V. Newton, 326a. 
Home Sav. Bank v. Hosie, 606. 

V. Stewart, 1230. 
Homer v. WalUs, 1392, 1410a. 
Homes v. Smith, 832, 1057. 
Homewood People's Bank v. Heckett, 

Honaker v. Jones, 156. 
Honore v. Blakewell, 1281. 
Hood V. Hallenbeck, 407, 418, 1095o. 

V. Morgan, 1340. 

V. Robbins & Smith, 144, 175. 
Hoodlessj;. Reid, 1261. 
Hood's Appeal, 1417. 
Hook V. Pratt, 195, 698. 
Hooker v. Blount, 1235a, 1236. 

V. Gallagher, 683. 

Hooks V. Anderson, 713e. 

V. State, 69. 
Hooper i-. Keay, 1250, 1251, 1253. 

V. Rathbone, 1741. 

V. Williams, 130. 
Hoopes V. Collingwood, 143, 1385. 
Hoover v. Kilander, 859. 

V. McCormick, 1311, 1326, 1328. 
Hoover, Assignee, v. Wise, 344. 
Hope V. Barker, 53, 54a. 

V. Cust, 366. 
Hopes r. Alder, 1158, 1162. 
Hopkins v. Adams, 1478, 1481. 

V. Beebee, 22. 

V. Crittenden, 1458a. 

V. Detwiler, 1260, 1262. 

V. Haliburton & Parr, 62, 62a. 

V. Hawkeye Ins. Co., 849a. 

V. Insurance Co., 81c. 

t'. Kent, 728. 

V. Liswell, 1162. 

V. Mehaffy, 307. 

V. Merrill, 719, 971. 

V. Railroad Co., 32. 

t'. Richardson, 1763. 
Hopkinson v. Foster, 1567, 16366, 1637, 

1638, 1639, 1645. 
Hopku-k V. Page, 664a, 748a, 1074, 

1076, 1080. 
Hopley V. Dufresne, 1152, 1155. 
Hopper V. Eiland, 63. 
Hopper-Morgan Co., In re, 10, 776, 

789, 795, 802, 831a. 
Hopping V. Quin, 787a, 1209. 
Hopps V. Savage, 92, 142, 843. 
Horah v. Long, 1187, 1189. 
Horn V. Bank 1387, 1413. 

V. Bennett, 835. 

V. Fuller, 175. 

V. McKinney, 207, 761. 
Hornblower v. Prond, 827. 
Hombrooke v. Lucas, 1260. 
Home V. Planters Bank, 1252. 

V. Redfeame, 40. 

V. Rouquette, 911. 
Horner v. Amick, 1219. 

V. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 1743. 

V. Simpson, 196. 
Homes v. Hale, 850. 
Homstein v. Cifuno, 1385. 
Hornthal v. Steamboat Co., 1740a. 
Horowitz V. Wollowitz, 669, 673. 
Horrigan v. Wyman, 8156. 
Horst V. Wagner, 1415. 
Horton v. Bayne, 796, 812, 815. 

V. Town of Thompson, 1532, 1562. 
Hortons v. Townes, 291, 322. 
Hortsman v. Henshaw, 533, 534, 538, 

1354, 1356, 1363, 1366. 
Iloskinson v. Bagby, 810, 812, 1181a. 



References are to paragraphs marked 

Hosier v. Beard, 209, 212, 806a. 
Hosstater v. Wilson, 52. 
Hotchin v. Secor, 1267. 
Hotchkiss V. Marion, 1491c. 

V. Mosher, 39, 1703. 

V. Plaster Co., 830, 831, 831a. 
Hotel Lanier Co. v. Johnson, 88, 1385. 
Hotham v. Berry, 1340. 
Houck V. Graham, 81c, 710, 714, 1341, 

Hough V. Barton, 1472, 1484. 

V. Gray, 1779. 

V. State Bank of New Smyrna, 
1202, 1203. 
Houghton V. Adams, 1676a. 

V. City of Boston, 1623. 

V. Ely, 713a. 

V. Francis, 1398. 
Houk V. Walker 354. 
Housatonic Bank v. Laflin, 979, 983. 
House V. Adams, 1059, 1060, 1070, 1017. 

V. Kountz, 1636. 

V. Martin, 177. 

V. Vinton Bank, 1002. 
Housego V. Cowne, 972, 1017. 
Houston V. Bruner, 712. 

V. Keith, 797, 812, 867, 879. 
Housum V. Rogers, 1689. 
Houts V. Sioux City Brass Works, 80, 

Houx r. Russell, 1687. 
Hovov V. Bannister, 403. 

V. Magill, 404. 

V. Sebring, 1192a. 
Hovorka v. Hemmer, 41, 1373. 
Howard v. Bowman, 643. 

V. Central Bank, 1453. 

V. Duncan, 1352a. 

V. Ives, 331, 992, 1039, 1043. 

V. Johnson, 1309. 

V. Jones, 1757, 1760. 

V. McCall, 1250. 

V. Mississippi Valley Bank, 1359. 

V. Oakes, 254. 

V. Palmer, 105. 

V. Shepherd, 1745a. 

V. Simpkins, 52. 

V. Stratton, 81c. 

V. Van Geierson, 713e. 

V. Windham Coimty Sav. Bank, 
24b, 1185. 
Howard & Co. v. Walker, 335, 342. 
Howard Bank v. Carson, 959. 
Howe V. Bowes, 1119. 

V. Bradley, 979, 983, 1018, 1019, 

V. Carpenter, 125. 

V. Hale, 1483. 

V. Hartness, 56, 1703. 
V. Klein, 205. 

Howe V. Litchfield, 194. 

V. Merrill, 672, 707, 719, 1760. 

V. Ould, 63, 63a, 800a. 

V. Potter, 758. 

V. Purves, 1390. 

V. Raymond, 203. 

V. Starkweather, 1708a. 

V. Taggart, 185. 

V. Wildes, 240. 
Howe, Knox & Co. v. Ould & Carring- 

ton, 63a. 
Howe Mach. Co. v. Hadden, 1201, 1202. 
Howell t;. Adams, 1707a. 

i;. Crane, 174a, 726a, 786, 803. 

V. Dimock, 833. 

V. Jones, 1789. 

V. Mfg. Co., 3706. 

V. Merchants' T. & S. Co., 775, 

V. Ware, 816. 

V. Wilson, 736, 899. 

V. Wright, 182. 
Howes V. Austin, 1587. 
Howey v. Gessler, 62, 
Howrv V. Eppinger, 51a, 775. 
Hoyland v. Nat. Bank, 598, 1480. 
Hoyt V. Adee, 213. 

V. Kountze, 1182, 

V. LjTich, 73. 

V. Macon, 204, 

V. Quint, 1769. 

V. Seeley. 1586, 1587, 1596, 1652. 

V. Thompson, 317, 392, 395. 

V. Wilkinson, 1204. 
Hubbard v. Chapin, 758c, 808. 

V. Exch. Bank, 867. 

V. Freiburger, 196. 

I'. Gumey, 1329, 1338. 

V. Harrison, 62, 62a. 

V. Jackson, 1237, 1242. 

V. Manhattan Tr. Co., 1709. 

V. Matthews, 222, 592, 861, 998, 
999, 999a. 

V. Moseley, 41, 44, 

V. Rankin, 850, 

V. Tod, 674. 

V. Town of LjTidon, 422. 

V. Troy, 926. 

V. University Bank, 1202. 

V. Williams, 800a. 

V. Williamson, 1402. 
Hubbell V. Flint, 200, 1250. 
Hubbersty v. Ward, 1729, 1733. 
Hubble V. Forgartie, 108. 

V. Morristown Land Co., 879, 898. 
Hubbly V. Brown, 1305. 
Huber v. Egner, 741. 

V. Steiner, 884. 
Huber Mfg. Co. v. Silvers, 1294. 
Hubner v. Richardson, 206, 


References are to paragraphs marked § 

Hubner v. Crane, 1182. 
Huckins v. Hunt, 194. 
Hudson V. Best, 797. 

V. Equitable Mtg. Co., 812. 

V. Goodwin, 1195. 

V. Matthews, 616. 

V. Wolcott, 720a, 722, 1147. 

V. Wright, 1478. 
Hudson Bros. Com. Co. v. Glencoe 

Sand & Gravel Co., 1310. 
Huey V. Macon County, 1514. 
Huff V. Slife, 1326, 1769. 

V. Wagner, 758, 766. 
Huffaker v. Nat. Bank, 656, 946. 
Huffmans v. Walker, 1221. 
Hughes V. Bowen, 1147, 1148. 

V. Crooker, 816. 

V. Fisher, 79, 508. 

V. Heyman, 1786, 1787, 1788. 

V. Kearney, 1281. 

V. Kiddell, 668. 

V. Large, 725, 1436. 

V. Nelson, 260, 743, 744, 745. 

V. Treadway, 262. 

V. Wheeler, 108, 1274. 
Hughes Bros. v. Rawhide Gold Min. 

Co., 504. 
Hughes County v. Livingstone, 43, 

803, 1537, 1540, 1542. 
Hughes & Co. V. Flint, 789. 
Hughitt V. Johnson, 54a, 61. 

V. Hayes, 1425. 
Huidekoper v. Buchanan County, 

Huie V. Allen, 394. 
Hulbert v. Douglas, 7956. 
Huling V. Hugg, 99. 
Hulings V. Hulings Lumber Co., 1643. 
Hull V.Angus, 41, 7816. 

V. Blake, 800a. 

V. Conover, 574, 741, 1197. 

V. Missouri Pacific Ry. Co., 1728. 

V. Myers, 89, 9956. 
Hulme V. Tenant, 247. 

V. Turner, 207. 
Humbert v. Larson, 203. 
Humble v. Curtis, 823, 824. 

V. Mitchell, 1708a. 
Humboldt Township v. Long, 1542. 
Humbolt Savings & Loan Soc. v. Dowd, 

Hume V. Mazelin, 1458a. 

V. Watt 999. 
Humfreville' Matter of, 16186. 
Hummel v. First Nat. Bank, 1612a. 
Humphrey v. Beckwith, 59. 

V. Clement, 1247. 

V. Hitt, 1311, 1339. 
Humphrey Hardware Co. v. Herrick, 


Humphreys v. Bicknell, 1586, 1587, 

V. Chastain, 370a, 683. 

V. Guillow, 1390, 1402. 

V. Nat. Bank, 1289a. 

V. Smith, 183. 

V. Sutcliffe, 1209. 
Humphrey ville r. Culver, II8I0, 1198. 
Humphries v. Nix, 32. 
Hungerford v. O'Brien, 1786. 
Hunleth v. Leahy, 725, 725a, 7266. 
Hunnicutt v. Perot, 995. 
Hunt V. Adams, 74, 94, 1332, 1404, 

V. Aldrich, 1190. 

V. Bell, 195a. 

V. Bessey, 1227. 

V. Boyd, 1260. 

V. Bridgham, 12156. 

V. Divine, 56, 1707. 

V. Gray, 1413. 

V. Higman, 1262. 

V. Johnson, 891. 

V. Listenberger, 298, 300, 322. 

V. Massey, 230. 

V. Maybee, 656, 1144. 

V. Memphis Gas Light Co., 382, 

t;. Miss. Central R. Co., 1733. 

V. Northwestern Mortg. & Trust 
Co., 394a. 

V. Rumsey, 205. 

V. Sanford, 775, 778. 

V. Standart, 879, 898, 899, 901. 

V. Stewart, 1218. 

V. Wadleigh, 1172. 

V. Williams, 174a. 
Hunt's Exr. v. Hall, 918. 
Hunter, Ex -parte, 1612. 

V. Allen, 1181a. 

V. Bacon, 367. 

V. Blodgett, 136. 

V. Clark, 62a. 

V. Clarke, 61, 834. 

t;. Cobb, 126. 

V. First Nat. Bank, 68a, 816, 1321. 

V. Fitzmaurice, 1354. 

V. Hempstead, 694. 

V. Hook, 1103, 1149. 

V. Hunter, 1470. 

V. Ingraham, 514. 

V. Jeffrey, 136. 

t;. Jett, 1321. 

V. Johnson, 156, 1230. 

V. Robertson, 12156. 

V. Van Bomhorst, 969. 

V. Wilson, 174a. 

V. Wood, 1458. 
Huntington v. Branch Bank, 147, 843. 

V. Finch, 1390, 1420. 



References are to paragraphs marked § 

Huntington v. Harvey, 1304, 1147. 

V. Lombard, 202, 741, 748a. 

V. Shute, 164. 

V. Wellington, 1763. 
Huntley v. Hitchinson, 573. 

V. Sanderson, 1045. 
Hunt's Appeal, 1699. 
Huntzinger v. Jones, 1646. 
Huot V. Ely, 800a. 
Hurd V. Hall, 732, 733. 

V. Little, 1328. 

V. St. Alban, 422a. 

V. Spencer, 1311. 
Hurlburt & Sons v. Straub, 769a, 807. 
Hurlbut V. Hall, 1385, 1410a, 1411, 

Huron v. Second Ward Sav. Bank, 1537. 
Hurrah v. Doherty, 703. 
Hurry v. Kline, 798. 
Hurst, In re, 1260, 1267. 

V. Chambers, 731, 731a. 

V. Pearce, 803. 
Hurt V. Ford, 855. 
Husband v. Epling, 41. 
Huse V. Alexander, 1266. 

V. HambUn, 56, 57, 1706. 
Hussey V. Freeman, 1106. 

V. Hill, 748, 834. 

V. Jacob, 6, 521, 525. 

V. Sibley, 731, 7316, 734. 

V. Winslow, 38, 73. 
Huston V. Fatka, 1326. 

V. Newgass, 532. 

V. Noble, 1245. 

V. Tyler, 7316, 740a. 

V. Weber, 1276. 

V. Young, 83, 630. 
Hutcheson v. King, 800a. 
Hutchings v. Da Costa, 1631. 

V. Evans, 800a. 

V. Olcutt, 1260, 1279a. 

V. Reinalter, 1181a, 1191. 
Hutchins v. Langley, 769a, 776, 781. 

V. McCann, 766. 

V. State Bank. 1708a. 
Hutchinson v. Benedict, 834. 

V. Bogg, 177, 815. 

V. Brown, 68, 855. 

V. Crane, 1182. 

V. Crutcher, 1119. 

V. Dornin, 196a. 

V. Manhattan Co., 3406. 

V. Simon, 668. 

V. Woodwell, 1260. 
Hutchinson & Wilson v. Powell, 356, 

Huttig, etc., Co. V. Gough, 366. 
Huttig Sash & Door Co. v. Gitchell, 

Hutton t;. Eyre, 1291. 

Huyck V. .Meador, 38, 39. 

Hyde v. First Nat. Bank, 341, 344. 

V. Franklin County, 422, 427, 

V. Goodnow, 867, 868, 879, 882, 

V. Hazel, 725. 

V. Kitchen, 24a. 

V. Page, 303, 305. 

V. Planters' Bank, 341. 

V. Price, 243. 

V. Stone, 1159. 
Hyde & Leather Nat. Bank v. Alex- 
ander, 8156. 
Hyer v. York Mfg. Co., 205. 
Hyland v. Blodgett, 55. 

V. Bohn Mfg. Co., 1318. 

V. Habich, 1789. 
Hyman v. Doyle, 606. 

V. Kain, 226. 
Hymes v. Weld, 358a. 
Hjme V. Downey, 40. 
Hynes v. Plastino, 193. 
HjTjes V. Griffin, 305, 308a, 405, 418. 
Hyslop V. Clark, 204. 

V. Jones, 1003. 

Iberia Cypress Co. v. Christen, 185, 

Ide V. Ingraham, 374. 
Iglehart v. Moore, 800a. 
Ihl V. Bank of St. Joseph, 1612, 1612a. 
Ihmsen v. Negley, 357. 
IlUnois Cent. R. Co. v. Nelson, 1729. 

V. Owens, 1732. 
Illinois Conference v. Plagge, 1191, 

Illinois Match Co. v. Chicago, R. I. & 

P. Ry. Co., 1728. 
Ilsey V. Stubbs, 1730a. 
Ilsley V. Jones, 562, 564. 
Imboden v. Perrine, 1644. 
Implement Co. v. Schieck, 282. 
Importers Bank v. Littell, 764. 
Importers, etc.. Bank v. Peters, 336. 
Importers' & Traders' Nat. Bank v. 

Shaw, 1022, 1032. 
Indell V. Goldfield Realty Co. 392a. 
Independent Brewing Assn.. v. Klett, 

Indiana v. Gates, 193. 
Indiana, etc.. Bank v. Colgate, 1731, 

Indiana, etc., R. Co. v. Davis, 424. 

V. Sprague, 1506. 
Indiana Nat. Bank v. Holtzclaw, 809. 

V. Weckerly, 850, 852. 
Indiana Trust Co. v. BjTam, 63a. 


References are to paragraphs marked § 

Indian Head Nat. Bank v. Clark, 284, 

Indig V. Nat. City Bank, 326a, 327. 
Industrial Tr. Co. v. Weakeley, 1587, 

Ingalls V. Lee, 669, 674, 7G1, 766. 
Ingels V. Sutliff, 13176, 1339. 
IngersoU v. Long, 899. 
Ingham v. Dudley, 59. 

V. Primrose, 842a. 
Ingraham v. Gibbs, 114. 
Ingram v. Foster, 492. 
Inhabitants v. Weir, 422. 
Innes v. Munro, 159. 

V. Stephenson, 1612. 
Insurance Co. v. Bruce, 1537. 

V. Burkett, 305. 

V. Homer, 81. 

V. Wilson, 643, 644, 950, 959, 960, 
991, 1005, 1039, 1057, 1151. 
Insurance Co. of North America i'. 

Martin, 1215. 
International Bank v. Enderle, 68a, 

V. Gorman Bank, 108, 1706a. 
International Harvester Co. v. Smith, 

Interstate Nat. Bank v. Ringo, 1621, 

1623, 1625. 
Iowa County v. Foster, 1267. 
Iowa Loan & Tr. Co. v. Holderbaum, 

Iowa Nat. Bank v. Carter, 47, 776, 819. 

V. Cooper, 1343. 

V. Sherman, 165, 202. 

V. Sherman & Bratager, 394, 832. 
Iowa Valley State Bank v. Sigstad, 

694, 1092. 
Ireland v. Kip, 1014, 1016. 

V. Scharpenberg, 819, 1181a. 

V. White, 209. 
Irish V. Cutter, 715, 1757. 

V. Nutting, 25. 

V. Webster, 443. 
Iron City Nat. Bank v. Peyton & Co., 
1654a, 1655, 1655a, 1656, 

V. Rafferty, 1311. 
Ironclad Mfg. Co. v. Sackin, 635. 
Iron Mt. R. Co. v. Knight, 1729. 
Iron Works v. Paddock, 371a, 709. 

_ V. Smith, 827. 
Irvin V. Garner, 1281. 

V. Maury, 5. 

V. Villiar, 195a. 
Irvine v. Adams, 1317, 1338. 

V. Lowry, 56. 
Irving Bank v. Wetherald, 135, 493, 

1608, 1610a, 1622, 1655a. 
Irving Nat. Bank v. Alley, 136. 

Irwin V. Brown, 31. 

V. Deming, 693^ 1225. 

I'. Lombard Universitj', 188a. 

V. Planters' Bank, 1479. 

V. Reeves Pulley Co., 341. 
Isaac V. Daniel, 1319. 
Isaac Eberly Co. v. Gib.son, 741. 
Isaacs V. Cohn, 790, 791. 
Isbell V. Lewis & Co., 1017. 
Isbery v. Bowden, 1429. 
Iselin V. Rowlands, 698(/. 
Iser V. Cohen, 710. 
Isham V. McClure, 1103, 1106. 

V. Post, 795a. 
Isnard v. Towes, 1405. 
Israel t;. Douglas, 23. 

V. Gale, 790. 

V. Israel, 36a. 
Ives V. Bosley, 710, 713a. 

V. Farmers Bank, 142, 146. 
Ivory V. Bank of Missouri, 327, 328a, 
1572, 1574. 

V. Michael, 142, 1385, 1408. 
Izzo V. Ludington, 21, 4976. 

Jaccard v. Anderson, 1094, 1095a. 
Jack V. Morrison, 713rf. 
Jacks V. Darrin, 1049, 1105, 1425, 
1473, 1596. 

V. Moore, 1425. 

V. Nichols, 923. 
Jackson v. Adams, 1219. 

V. Am. Mtg. Co., 923. 

V. Augusta Southern R. Co., 32. 

V. Bank, 294, 574. 

V. Boyles, 1399. 

V. Brown, 382, 1272, 1273. 

V. City Nat. Bank, 195a, 200. 

V. Claw, 398. 

V. Day, 1418. 

r. First Nat. Bank, 792, 793a. 

V. Gumaer, 213. 

V. Henderson, 622. 

V. Hudson, 98, 485. 

V. Jackson, 162, 1470, 1479. 

V. Jones, 799. 

V. King, 209. 

V. Love, 573, 575, 812. 

V. Mclnnis, 588. 

V. Newton, 598. 

V. Packer, 650, 1217. 

;;. Parks, 241. 

V. Phillips, 1219. 

V. Pigot, 490, 491. 

V. Ri^chards, 1035, 1083, 1172. 

V. Sell, 98, 100. 

V. Tribble, 74. 

V. Union Bank, 341. 



References are to paragraphs marked § 

Jackson v. Van Dusen, 209. 

V. Vicksburg, etc., R. Co., 14966, 

V. Walker, 196. 

V. West, II8I0. 

V. Wood, 1335. 

V. Y. & C. R. Co., 1511. 

V. Yendes, 1785. 
Jackson Bank v. Irons, 7136, 1092a, 

Jackson County v. Hall, 14916. 
Jackson Paper Mfg. Co. v. Commercial 

Nat. Bank, 292, 293, 392a. 
Jacob 7>. Hart, 1376. 
Jacobs V. Ballenger, 1252. 

V. Benson, 100. 

V. Gibson, 688c, 692, 1092. 

V. Gilreath, 1401, 1402. 

V. Hart, 1376, 1404. 

V. Maloney, 264. 

V. Mitchell, 156. 

V. Town, 1017. 
Jacobs Pharmacy Co. v. Trust Co., 386. 
Jacoby v. Ross, 693. 
Jacoby & Co. v. Payson, 293. 
Jacquin v. Warren, 36a, 119. 
Jagger Iron Co. v. Walker, 1266a, 

Jaffray v. Brown, 713e. 

V. Crane, 13176. 

V. Davis, 1281, 1289. 

V. Dennis, 919. 

V. Freban, 238. 

V. Krauss, 713e. 
James v. Badger, 1327. 

V. Blackman, 812. 

V. Calder, 175. 7136. 

V. Catherwood, 913, 914. 

V. Dalvey, 1398. 

V. E. G. Lyons Co., 551, 560. 

V. Johnson, 1433, 1491a. 

V. Rogers, 78. 

V. Taylor, 250. 

V. Tilton, 1387. 

V. Wade, 1060, 1070, 1147. 

V. Yaeger, 782. 

Matter of, 26, 288. 
James & Harvestock v. Dalbey, 857. 
Jameson v. Swinton, 601, 987, 990, 

1038, 1044. 
Jamestown Business College Ass'n v. 

Allen, 816. 
Jamieson v. Potts, 867, 878, 882, 884. 
Jamieson & McFarland v. Helm, 381, 

Jamison v. Auxier, 1398. 
Janin v. Bank, 1654a. 
Janis V. Roetgen, 185. 
Jansen v. Grimshaw, 1266. 

V. Paxton, 703a. 

Jansen v. Thomas, 617. 
January v. Goodman, 112. 
Jaqua v. Montgomery, 862. 
Jarnagin v. Stratton, 1296. 
Jarrell v. Crow, 181. 
Jarrolt v. Moberly, 15356, 
Jarvis v. Garrnett, 636. 

V. Manhattan Beach Co., 775, 

V. Rogers, 1708. 

V. St. Croix Mfg. Co., 1033. 

V. Wilkins, 40. 

V. Wilson, 35, 110, 496, 504, 532, 
Jasper County v. Ballou, 1537. 
Jasper Tr. Co. v. Railroad Co., 1750a. 
Jaster v. Currie, 717. 
Jefferson v. Century Sav. Bank, 832a, 

Jefferson Bank v. Chapman, 1685. 

V. Chapman- White-Lyons Co., 386, 
394, 761, 776, 1469. 

V. Merchants' Refrigerating Co., 
Jefferson County v. Railroad Co., 189. 
Jefferson County Bank v. Chapman, 

1672a, 1690. 
Jeffersonville v. Patterson, 1507, 1513, 

Jeffrey v. Rosenfeld, 1411, 1413. 
Jeffries v. Austin, 174. 
Jefts V. York, 307. 
Jenckes v. Rico, 41. 
Jenkins v. Bass, 94. 

V. Brown, 1734o. 

V. Daniel, 1328. 

V. Hart, 32. 

V. Hutchinson, 307, 485. 

V. Jenkins, 1219. 

V. Jones, 769a. 

V. Morris, 362. 

V. Phillips, 262. 

V. Planters' & Mechanics' Bank, 

V. Reynolds, 1764. 

V. Schaub, 824. 

V. Sherman, 271, 1181a, 1192. 

V. Shinn, 1230. 

V. Temples, 196. 

V. Wilkinson, 664a. 
Jenks V. Barr, 1289. 

V. Doylestown Bank, 656. 
Jenners v. Howard, 214. 
Jenness v. Cutler, 13176. 
Jenney v. Hearle, 50. 
Jennings v. Carluci, 805. 

V. First Nat. Bank, 41. 

V. Grand Trunk Ry. Co., 1740a. 

V. Law, 196a. 

i;. Moore, 8I0, 1335, 1458. 



References are to paragraphs marked § 

Jennings v. Neville, 24b, 979, 989, 1227. 

V. Roberts, 979, 989. 

V. Thomas, 710, 716. 

V. Todd, 79r,b, 796, 860. 
Jennison v. Parker, 826, 1276. 

V. Stafford, 827. 
Jenys v. Fawler, 533. 
Jerome v. Commissioners, 427. 
Jersey City Sav. Bank v. Bank, 783. 
Jett V. Standafer, 7816, 1225. 
Jeune v. Ward, 499a, 500, 682, 1619. 
Jewell V. Purr, 1206. 

V. WriRht, SOS, 908 924. 
Jciwett V. West Somerville Co-Operative 
Bank, 382. 

V. Smith, 261. 
Jobes V. Wilson, 163, 201, 814a, 819. 
Jocque V. McRae, 618. 
Jocrgenson v. Joergenson, 47. 
Johannessen v. Monroe, 831c, 1790. 
John V. City Nat. Bank, 1005, 1016, 

V. Farmers Bank, 93. 

t;. Selma Bank, 1016. 
Johns V. Johns, 1708a. 

V. Wilson, 8346. 
Johnson v. Acme Harvesting Mach. Co., 

V. Bank, 326a, 1225. 

V. Bank of FuUerton, 933. 

V. Bank of United States, 1395. 

V. Barney, 1701. 

V. Bentley, 1565. 

V. Berlizhcimer, 370&. 

V. Blasdale, 147. 

V. Brown, 959, 1005a, 1039. 

t;. Buffalo Center State Bank, 
392a, 776. 

V. Butler, 777a. 

V. Carpenter, 834. 

V. Catlin, 1187. 

V. Chadwell, 211. 

V. Clark, 1734a. 

V. Cleaves, 1268. 

V. Cobb, 769a, 812. 

V. Collins, 555, 558, 559. 

V. Conklin, 93. 

V. Crossland, 62. 

V. Dooley, 56, 1245. 

V. Eaton, 63. 

Ex parte, 1172. 

V. First Nat. Bank, 1364, 1657. 

V. Frisbie, 53, 54. 

V. Gilbert, 739a, 1763. 

V. Glover, 717. 

V. Gulledge, 832o. 

V. Haith, 1175. 

V. Hanover Nat. Bank, 769o. 

V. Heagan, 150, 1397. 

V. Henderson, 56. 

Johnson v. Hibbard, 742. 

t'. Hollcnsworth, 1181a. 

V. Hoovw, 1378. 

V. Johnson, 834, 1250, 1403. 

V. Johnson Bros., 386. 

V. Josey, 728. 

V. Kennion, 1237. 

V. Kent. 1429. 

V. Lane 8 Trustees, 71. 

t'. Lasker, etc., Assn., 207. 

V. Lassiter, 106. 

t'. Lockhart, 1229. 

V. McMurray, 812, 815, 819. 

V. Mangum, 680. 

V. Martinus, 717. 

V. Medlicott, 214. 

V. Meeker, 198, 808. 

V. Mitchell, 663a, 694, 696, 698, 

V. Mo. Pac. Ry. Co., 799. 

V. Nisbit, 80. 

I'. Noble Machine Co., 879. 

r. Offut, 117. 

V. Parker, 1092a. 

V. Parker Sav. Bank, 3266. 

V. Parshley, 174. 

V. Parsons, 1095a. 

V. Ramsay, 703, 717, 1093. 

V. Realty Co., 7956. 

V. Redwine, 183. 

V. Schnabaum, 721. 

V. Searcy, 1094. 

V. Smith, 307, 404. 

V. Stark County, 317, 663, 1496, 
1497, 1500, 1509, 1511, 1512a, 
1514, 1524. 

V. Success Brick Machinery Co., 

V. Thayer, 21. 

V. Titue, 202. 

V. Underbill, 17086. 

V. Vickers, 834. 

V. Way, 769a, 776. 

V. Weed, 1273. 

V. Willard, 81c. 

V. Wright, 1652. 
Johnson & Co. v. Central Vermont Ry. 

Co., 1734. 
Johnson, Berger & Co. v. Downing, 

833, 1085. 
Johnson-Brinkman Com. Co. v. Bank, 

Johnson County Savings Bank v. Cap- 
itol, 812. 

V. Chase, 789. 

V. Greeg, 819. 

V. Kemp Mercantile Co., 814. 

V. Kramer, 6, 174a, 896. 

V. Mills, 814a. 

V. Rapp, 163, 775. 



References are to paragraphs marked § 

Johnson County Savings Bank v. Red- 
fearn, 156. 

V. Scroggin Drug Co., 574, 741, 

V. Walker, 761, 819. 

V. Wooten, 814. 
Johnson, etc.. Bank v. Lane, 669, 929, 

Johnson School Township v. Citizens' 

Bank, 38, 403. 
Johnston v. Allen, 196a. 

V. Barrills, 1260. 

V. Commercial Bank, 533. 

V. Hoover, 144. 

V. Laflin, 17086, 1708^. 

V. Loar, 728, 812. 

V. McDonald, 713, 1760. 

V. Schnabaum, 698, 698<i, 720a, 

V. Speer, 62. 
Johnston Harvester Co. v. Clark, 62. 

V. McLean, 142, 843, 844, 1405. 
Joliet Iron Co. r. Scioto F. B. Co., 833. 
Joliffe ;;. Higgins, 161. 
Jolly V. Huebler, 1181a, 1230. 
Jones, Ex parte, 22. 

V. Albee, 719. 

V. Ashford, 1769a. 

V. Babbitt, 1222. 

V. Bacon, 1763. 

V. Bangs, 1385. 

V. Bank of Iowa, 552. 

V. Bank of Pine Bluff, 713a. 

V. Berryhill, 790. 

V. Broadhurst, 1237, 1239, 1240. 

V. Brown, 88, 1317a. 

t;. Burden, 819. 

V. Chesebrough, 1612a. 

V. Cottrell, 1319. 

V. Crostwaite, 1306a. 

V. Darch, 93, 227, 535, 536. 

V. Deyer, 24. 

V. Evans, 814. 

V. Fales, 55, 56, 150, 154, 616, 658, 
1048, 1383, 1410a, 1478, 1481. 

V. Fort, 576, 1229. 

V. Goodwin, 713c. 

V. Hanna, 166. 

V. Heiliger, 1600. 

V. Hibbert, 756. 

V. Hook, 884. 

V. Hurst, 1282. 

V. Ireland, 1401. 

V. Jackson, 799. 

V. Jones, 64, 68, 182, 1215b, 1218. 

V. Kilbreth, 326. 

V. Lane, 1199. 

V. Lathrop, 312. 

V. Le Tombe, 439. 

V. Lewis, 1015, 1022. 

Jones V. Littledale, 740a. 

V. Lynch, 713a. 

V. McNearly, 1458. 

V. Mars, 287. 

V. Middleton, 611, 996. 

V. Miners' & Merchants' Bank, 

V. Nellis, 663. 

V. Nicholl, 1215. 

V. Norton, 1181a. 

V. O'Brien, 1158. 

V. Peterson, 177, 183. 

V. Phenix Bank, 234. 

V. Piening, 1435a. 

V. Radatz, 62. 

V. Rittenhouse, 183. 

V. Roberts, 1100. 

V. Ryde, 731a, 7316, 1675. 

V. Savage, 1149, 1159, 1275. 

V. Shaw, 68a, 80, 81. 

V. Shelbyville Ins. Co., 142. 

V. Simpson, 53. 

V. Smith, 62a. 

V. State, 55. 

V. Steamboat Co., 1428. 

V. Stoddart, 394, 795c. 

V. Strawhan, 1260. 

V. Taylor, 80. 

V. Thayer, 1760. 

V. Thorn, 3706, 683. 

V. Tumour, 1218. 

V. Warden, 1053. 

V. Weakley, 24, 24a. 

V. Wheeler, 265, 812. 

V. Wiesen, 780, 803, 814, 824. 

V. Witter, 741, 748. 

V. Wood, 90a. 

V. Yokum, 196. 
Jones Co. v. Board of Education, 857. 
Jordaine v. Lashbrooke, 14, 1217. 
Jordan v. Bell, 1458. 

V. Dobbins, 1770a, 1789. 

V. Harrison, 731. 

t'. Jordan, 68a, 854. 

I'. Reed, 1141, 1149. 

V. Tarkington, 534. 

V. Tate, 43. 

V. WTieeler, 472. 
Jordon v. Grover, 815. 

V. Harrison, 731. 
Joseph V. Carton, 46. 

V. Nat. Bank, 142. 

V. Salomon, 9, 579, 995. 
Joseph Township v. Rogers, 1537. 
Joseph Wolf Co. V. Bank of Commerce, 

Joslin V.' Miller, 922. 
Josb-n V. Smith, 1215a, 12156. 
Josselyn v. Lacier, 50. 
Jossey V. Ruskin, 664. 



References are to paragraphs marked § 

Journal Printing Co. v. Maxwell, 769a, 

Journey v. Pierce, 984. 
Jourolmon v. Evving, 1458. 
Joveshof V. Rockey, 812. 
Joy V. Diefendorf, 750, 789. 
Joyce V. Auten, 68a. 

V. Cockrill, 68, 854, 856. 
Joyce Co. v. Rohan, 196a. 
Judah V. Harris, 56. 
Judd V. Martin, 185. 

V. Smith, 1586. 
Judge V. Vogel, 834. 
Judson V. Corcoran, 747. 
Judy V. Louderman, 827. 
Julian V. Calkins, 724a. 

V. Shorbrook, 508, 509. 
Julliard v. Chaffee, 68a, 816. 
Jump V. Loon, 1191. 
Jumper v. Bank, 1700, 1704. 
Junction R. Co. v. Clenacy, 800a. 
Junge V. Bowman, 305. 
Jungk V. Holbrook, 1309. 
Juniata Bank v. Hale, 591, 972, 988, 

1175, 1177. 
Jurden v. King, 1233. 
Jurgens v. N. Y. Life Ins. Co., 1221. 

V. Wichmann, 1037. 
Jury V. Barker, 41, 108. 
Justh V. HoUiday, 195a. 

V. Nat. Bank of the Common- 
wealth, 366. 

Kagel V. Totten, 851. 
Kahn v. Overstolz, 366. 

V. Walton, 195a, 1606a. 
Kahnweiler v. Anderson, 20, 21. 
Kain v. Bare, 195a, 205. 
Kaiser v. First Nat. Bank, 391. 

V. Latimer, 1713. 
Kalamazoo Nat. Bank v. Clark, 151, 

Kaminski v. Schefer, 832a. 
Kamm v. Holland, 708a, 716. 
Kampman v. McCormick, 56, 81a, 164, 

Kampmann v. Williams, 605, 927. 
Kanaga v. Taylor, 867. 
Kankakee Coal Co. v. Crane Bros. 

Mfg. Co., 711, 713c. 
Kansas v. Board of County Comrs. of 

Wichita County, 800a. 
Kansas City, etc., R. Co. v. Ivy Leaf 

Coal Co., 289. 
Kansas Loan Tr. Co. v. Gill, 834. 
Kansas Nat. Bank v. Bay, 307. 
Karner v. Ross, 81c. 
Karp V. Nat. Bank, 800a. 

Karsh v. Pottier &c. Mfg. &c. Co., 392a. 
Kaason v. Smith, 789, 794. 
Kastcr v. Pribilinski, 847. 
Katz V. Herrick, 802. 
Katzenberg v. Lehman, 1472. 
Katzenberger v. Aberdeen, 1561. 
Kaufman v. Barrenger, 497, 497&, 885, 

V. Robey, 802. 

V. State Saving Bank, 684. 
Kavanagh v. Bank of America, 573, 

775, 1703. 
Kavanaugh v. Bank, 327, 336, 1170, 
1464, 1566, 1621, 1651, 1652. 
Kay V. Allen, 17856. 

V. Brookman, 112. 

V. Duchesse de Peinne, 245. 
Kayser v. Hodopp, 186. 

t;. Hull, 716. 
Kealing v. Vansickle, 714, 715. 
Kean v. Davis, 410. 
Kearnev v. W. Granada Min. Co., 113. 

V. king, 11, 1580. 

V. Whitehead, 164. 
Kearslake v. Morgan, 1270, 1272. 
Kearsley v. Cole, 1295, 1322. 
Keating v. Morrissey, 161, 164, 196a. 
Keazer v. Colebrook Nat. Bank, 970, 

1202, 1226. 
Keck V. Bushway, 1758. 

V. Sedalia Brewing Co., 303. 

V. State ex rel. Nat. Cash Register, 
Keckley v. Union Bank, 207. 
Kedey v. Petty, 1266. 
Kedson v. Dilworth, 312. 
Keefe v. Volge, 1966. 
Keegan v. Rock, 814a, 819. 
Keel V. Construction Co., 644o. 

V. Larkin, 1260. 
Keeler v. Alexander, 1194. 

V. Bartine, 1290. 

V. Com. Printing Co., 722. 

V. Hollweg, 1311. 
Keeman v. Blue, 139. 
Keen v. Beard, 1653. 

V. Weeks, 1411. 
Keenan v. Blue, 156, 189, 663, 769a, 

802, 812, 1191. 
Keene v. Beard, 1567, 1587, 1638, 1652. 

V. Behan, 197, 776, 814a. 

V. Weeks, 1412. 
Keeton, In re, 62. 
Keidan v. Winegar, 305. 
Keim v. Vette, 812, 819. 
Keiser v. Jarrett, 204. 
Keith V. Clark, 447. 

V. Jones, 56. 
Keith Davis & Co. t;. Blanton, 834. 
Keithsburg v. Frick, 317, 1545, 1557. 



References are to paragraphs marked § 

Kellam v. Brodie, 1317. 

V. McKoon, 940. 
Keller v. Alexander, 1181a, 1191. 

V. Cohen, 156. 

V. Hicks, 427, 429. 

V. Home Life Ins. Co., 1090. 

V. Ruppold, 851. 

V. Singleton, 1260. 

V. Weeks, 422. 
Kellerman v. Kansas City R. Co., 1729, 

1729a, 1735. 
Kelley v. Bronson, 50. 

I'. Brown, 1149, 1584. 

r. Burroughs, 703. 

V. Chenango Valley Sav. Bank, 

V. Forty Second St. R. Co., 1229. 

V. Greenough, 479, 570. 

V. Hemmingway, 46. 

V. Keese, 1219. 

V. Lawrence Bros., 1266. 

V. Phenix Nat. Bank, 1509a. 

V. Scripture, 1734a. 

V. Telle, 868. 

V. Whitney, 51a, 700, 748, 775, 
787, 797, 834. 
Kellock V. Robinson, 1327. 
Kellogg V. Budlong, 1687. 

V. Curtis, 775, 780, 814, 815, 

V. Douglas County Bank, 1781. 

V. Dunn, 7lZd, 715. 

V. Fancher, 800a, 832. 

V. French, 801. 

V. Schnaake, 725a, 782. 

V. Steiner, 849. 
Kelly V. Collins, 1310. 

V. Ford, 815. 

V. Lawrence Bros., 1623. 

V. Mayor of Brooklyn, 428, 430, 
433, 434, 1520. 

V. Milan, 1532. 

V. Stead, 724a, 1238. 

V. Theiss, 986, 991. 
Kelsay t'. Taylor, 326. 
Kelsey v. Chamberlain, 80. 

V. Hibbs, 76. 
Kelman v. Calhoun, 815. 
Kelmer v. Krolick, 834. 
Kelso V. Frye, 158. 
Kelty V. Bank, 1590. 
Kemble v. Lull, 517, 534. 

V. Logan, 1227. 

V. Mills, 1084, 1596. 
Kemp's Estate, In re, 185. 
Kemp V. Balls, 1235. 

V. Claus, 62. 

V. Falk, 1730. 

V. Finden, 1341. 

V. Northern Trust Co., II8I0. 

Kempner v. Corner, 254, 681, 781a. 

V. Jordon, G9Sd. 
Kendall v. Eq. Life Ass. Society, 832a, 

V. Galvin, 88, 108. 

V. Parker, 62, 664. 

V. Porter, 1458a. 

V. Robertson, 197, 198. 

V. Selby, 53. 
Kendrick v. Campbell, 551, 

V. Forney, 1342. 

V. Kyle, 385. 

V. Lomax, 1266, 1329, 1458. 
Kennan v. Nash, 485. 
Kennard v. Cass Co., 15096, 1510. 

V. Knott, 1319. 
Kennedy v. Bibber, 1741. 

V. Geddes, 551, 552, 556, 1045. 

V. Gelders, 268. 

V. Gibson, 156, 815. 

V. Goodman, 174. 

V. Graham, Admr., 74. 

V. Groves, 995. 

V. Knight, 894. 

V. Lancaster County Bank, 1418. 

t;. Murdick, 196. 

V. O'Connor, 736. 

V. Rosier, 1277a. 

V. Spilka, 819. 

V. Thomas, 1209. 

V. Welch, 196b, 197. 
Kenner v. Creditors, 508, 633. 
Kenney v. The Jefferson County Bank, 

Kennicott v. Supervisors, 1520, 1523, 

1537, 1550. 
Kenningham v. Bedford, 1317. 
Kennon v. Bailey, 995, 713a. 

V. McRae, 611, 1048, 1110, 1148, 
1163, 1195. 
Kenny v. Hinds, 50. 

V. Walker, 164, 810. 
Kenosha v. Lamson, 1496, 1497, 1509a, 

1516, 1523, 1525. 
Kent V. Dawson Bank, 341. 

V. Reynolds, 1243. 

V. Rogers, 1431. 

V. Warner, 1048. 
Kenton Ins, Co. v. McClelland, 249. 
Kentucky Refining Co. v. Bank of 

Morilton, 1731. 
Kenworth v. Schofield, 303. 
Kenworthy v. Hopkins, 114. 

V. Sawyer, 241, 243, 675, 1322. 
Kenyon v. Williams, 303, 305. 
Kenyon Realty Co, v. Commercial 

Nat. Bank, 396. 
Keohane v. Smith, 748. 
Keokuk County State Bank v. Hall, 

827, 1310. 



References are to paragraphs marked § 

Keokuk Falls Imp. Co. v. Kingsland & 

Douglas Mfg. Co., 81c, 445. 
Kephart v. Butcher, 1277. 
Kerbaugh v. Nugent, 653. 
Kerby v. Ruegamer, 271. 

V. Wado, 783. 
Kerhane v. Smith, 748. 
Kerne v. Van Phul, 963, 1093. 
Kernan v.B.&M. Bank, 1352a. 
Kernodle v. Hunt, 203. 
Kernohan v. Durham, 7266. 

V. Mauss, 677, 748, 834. 
Kerper v. Wood, 374. 
Kerr v. Anderson, 812, 819. 

V. City of Corry, 1503. 
Kerrick v. Stevens, 1192a. 
Kerrigan v. Rautigan, 24b. 
Kerrison v. Cooke, 1333. 
Kersey v. Fuquay, 795. 
Kershaw v. Cox, 1395, 1402, 1404. 

V. Ladd, 342, 1590, 1592, 1599. 
Kervan v. Tovvnsend, 517. 
Kerwin, Ex parte, 148. 
Kessler v. Armstrong Cork Co., 117, 

V. Clayes, 28, 36a, 37, 80, 81a, 99. 
Kessler & Co. t>. Parelius, 815. 
Ketchum v. City of Buffalo, 383, 1530. 

V. Clark, 3696. 

V. Duncan, 1222, 1491a. 

V. Gray, 1779. 

V. Packer, 803, 1222. 
Ketterson v. Inscho, 68, 203, 1326. 
Keuka College v. Ray, 188a. 
Key V. Flint, 790. 

V. Knott, 1671. 

V. Usher, 68a. 
Keyes v. Bank, 324. 

V. Fenstermaker, 88, 606, 1163. 

V. Mann, 205. 

V. Winter, 1085. 
Keymer v. Lawrie, 326a. 
Keys V. Keys' Estate, 669, 1229. 

V. Lardner, 156, 834. 
Keyser v. Hinkle, 1266, 1272. 

V. Pickrell, 1219. 

V. Shepherd, 1199. 

V. Warfield, 145, 713a. 
Kiam v. Cummings 1331. 
Kidder v. Blake, 204. 

V. Norris, 1252. 
Kidson v. Dilworth, 717. 
Kieffer v. Ehler, 800a. 
Kiel V. Choate, 669, 703, 704. 
Kiersted v. Rogers, 1195. 
Kiesewetter v. Kress, 164. 
Kiff V. Weaver, 24. 
Kilgore v. Bulkley, 622, 634, 1703. 

V. Dempsey, 922, 923. 
Kilgour V. Finlayson, 292, 360, 370, 373. 

Kilkelly v. Martin, 1385. 

Killam v. Schoeps, 59. 

Killen's Estate, In re, 211. 

Killian v. Ashley, 7136. 

Killough V. Alford, 1247. 

Kilpatrick i'. Home Building Assn., 

Kimball v. Bittncr, 314. 

V. Bowen, 963. 

V. Bryan, 1074. 

V. Cleveland, 392. 

V. Huntington, 39, 163. 
Kimball County v. Mellon, 48, 53, 62. 
Kimble v. Christie, 852. 
Kimbro v. Bank of Fulton, 1684. 

V. Bullit, 358a, 308. 

V. Lytic, 793a. 
Kimbrough v. Hornsby, 800a, 889. 

V. Lane, 204. 
Kimmell v. Burns, 1458a. 
Kimpton v. Studebakcr Bros. Co., 742. 
Kincaid v. Higgins, 44, 80. 
Kincheloe v. Holmes, 17856. 
Kine v. Beaumont, 1051. 
King, In re, Estate of, 1458. 

V. Baldwin, 1311, 1313, 1339. 

V. Bellamy, 1181a. 

V. Buckley, 983, 985. 

V. Capper, 1708a. 

t;. Crowell, 638, 654, 1036. 

V. Dedham Bank, 1685. 

i;. Doolittle, 832. 

t;. Ellor, 35. 

V. Faber, 358a. 

V. Fleece, 1192. 

V. Fleming, 69. 

V. Gillet, 1288. 

V. Gottschalk, 812. 

V. Hamilton, 58. 

V. Hoare, 94, 1294, 1296. 

V. Holmes, 638, 654a. 

V. Houre, 94. 

V. Hurley, 974, 978, 979a. 

V. Jamison, 235. 

V. Johnson, 760. 

V. King, 1186a. 

V. Lambton, 63. 

V. Mecklenburg, 366, 724a, 769a, 
782, 812. 

V. Milsom, 1470. 

t;. Morrison, 1294. 

V. Nichols, 777. 

V. Parks, 790, 1335a. 

V. Perry Ins. Co., 207. 

V. Ridge, 753, 763. 

V. Ritchie, 713d. 

V. Sarria, 867, 873. 

V. Sparks, 278. 

V. Summitt, 739a. 

V. Thorn, 262, 268, 270. 

References are to paragraphs marked 


King V. Tyler, 1181a. 

V. Westbrooks, 1458. 
Kingan & Co., Ltd., v. Silvers^373a 
Kingman & Co. v. Cornell, /09, 710, 

Kingsberry v. Pettis County, 433. 
Kingsbury v. Butler, 89. 
Kingsland v. Koeppe, 712, 713c, 71/, 
V. Pryor, 827, 832a. 
Kingsland Land Co. v. Newman, 1021. 
Kingston, Ex parte, 1612a. 

V. Long, 41. 
Kingston Bank v. Eltinge, 1363. 
Kingston Sav. Bank v. Bosserman, 

1373, 1398. 
Kinkell v. Harper, 775, 780. 
Kinney v. Flinn, 102. 
V. Ford, 67. 
V. Heald, 449. 
V. Kruse, 803, 818, 819. 
Kinney & Co. v. Paine, 654. 
Kinsel v. Ballou, 48, 787. 

V. Wieland, 715. 
Kinsey v. Ring, 1425. 
Kinsley v. Buchanan, 1282. 
V. Evans, 800a. 
V. Robinson, 1082. 
Kinyon v. Stanton, 1587, 1588, 1596. 

r. Wohlford, 769a, 837. 
Kip V. Bank, 336. 
Kipp V. Smith, 776, 780, 795c 
Kipton V. Studdebaker Bros. Co., 47. 
Kirby v. Berguin, 1966, 815. 

V. Duke of Marlborough, 1250. 
V. McDonald. 355. 
V. Sesson, 1475. 
Kirk i;. Blurton, 361, 362. 

V. Dodge County Mut. Ins. Co., 52. 
V. Strickwood, 196a. 
Kirkey's Sons v. Crandall, 342 
Ku-kham v. Bank of America, 341, 1261. 

V. Boston, 720. 
Kirkland v. Benjamin, 196. 
V. Dinsmore, 1729a. 
V. Dreyfus, 1259, 1268. 
Kirkland Land & Imp. Co. v. Jones, 

1335. . ^_ 

Kirkman v. Bank of America, 67. 
,;. Benham, 262, 263. 
I'. Boston, 722. 
Kirkner v. Conklin, 703. 
Kirkpatrick v. Bonsall, 195a. 
V. Hawk, 1311. 
V. McCullough, 56, 996. 
V. Pviryear, 1587. 
Kirksey v. Bates, 946, 1238. 
Kirkwood v. First Nat. Bank, 1702a, 

1703, 1706. 
Kirsch v. Braun, 36, 50a, 1539. 

Kirtland v. Wanzer, 887, 928, 959. 
Kiskadden v. Allen, 43, 713a. 
Kistnor v. Peters, 688&. 
Kitchen v. Bartsch, 1231. 
V. Holmes, 268. 
V. Loudenback, 769a, 775, 777. 
V. Place, 1406. 
Kittle V. De Lamater, 782. 

V. Wilson, 1317. 
Kittler v. Studbaker, 831a. 
Kittridge v. Stegmier, 1311, 1339, 1396. 
Klass Com. Co. v. Wabash R. Co., 1741. 
Klauber v. BiggerstafT, 56, 1706. 
Klaus V. Moore, 729. 
Klein v. Boernstein, 1018. 
t;. Buckner, 1191, 1192. 
V. Currier, 713c, 1191, 1192, 1760. 
V. German Nat. Bank, 790, 1306. 
t;. Keyes, 174. 
.;. Long, 1321. 
Kline v. Bank of Tescott, 418, 419. 

V. Guthrie, 846. 
Kling V. Irving Nat. Bank, 1425. 

V. Kehoe, 717. 
Klint V. Higgins, 1227. 
Klockenbaum v. Pierson, 991, 979. 
Klopfer V. Levi, 534, 1205. 
Klosterman v. Loose, 405. 

V. Olcott, 1785. 
Knapp V. Alvord, 23. 
V. CoweU, 326a. 
V. Grant, 1560, 1561. 
t;. Green, 1215. 
V. McBride, 369. 
V. Mayor of Hoboken, 420. 
Knapp & Co. v. Tidewater Coal Co., 

386, 644a. 
Knapstein v. Tinnette, 65. 
Knatchbull v. Hallett, 336. 
Knaup, In re, 1490. 
Knaus i'. Givens, 354, 369a, 370, 371, 

Knecht v. Boshold, 606. 
Knefel v. Planner, 27. 
Knickerbocker Life Ins. Co. v. Pendle- 
ton, 953, 960, 1054. 
Knight V. Hawkins, 1312. 
V. Hunt, 194. 
V. Jones, 99. 
V. Leigh, 1468a, 1483. 
V. Lord Plymouth, 287. 
V. McReynolds, 49. 
V. Packard, 1217. 
V. Pugh, 165, 814. 
;;. St. Louis, etc., Ry. Co., 1727. 
V. W. T. Walker Brick Co., 81. 
Knights V. Putman, 759. 
Knights & Ladies of Security v. Hiber- 
nian Banking Assn., 41. 
Knill V. WilUams, 1394. 



References are to paragraphs marked § 

Knippenberg v. Greenwood Min. & 

Mill Co., 418. 
Knisely v. Sampson, 83. 

V. Williams, 1281a. 
Kniss V. Holbrook, 769a. 
Knobelock v. Germania Co. Bank, 

802, 1612a. 
Knoblauch v. Foglesong, 719. 
Knoll V. Melone, 513. 
Knopf V. Morel, 714. 
Knott V. Tidyman, 177, 193, 214, 

V. Venable, 617, 1032. 
Knowlton v. Schultz, 166, 769a. 
Knox V. Clifford, 70, 832. 

V. Eden Musee Co., 775, 1708, 

V. Lee, 1248. 

V. Reedside, 513, 514. 

V. The Nivella, 1729. 
Knox County v. Aspinwall, 317, 1523, 
1537, 1539, 1540. 

V. Nichols, 1540. 
Knoxville Nat. Bank v. Clark, 850, 

Koch V. Howell, 499c. 
Kock V. Bringer, 1005. 
Koehler v. Dodge, 724a, 726a, 727. 
Koenig v. Bramlett, 1789. 
Kohler v. Smith, 1458a. 
Kohn V. Collison, 240, 241. 

V. Consolidation Butter «fe Egg Co., 

V. Watkins, 136, 139. 
Kohrs V. Smith, 303. 
Konig V. Bayard, 521, 524, 993. 
Koons V. Davis, 860. 

V. Vancousant, 1215a. 
Koontz V. Central Nat. Bank, 1372. 
Kopelke v. Kopelke, 117. 
Korkemas c. Macksound, 1236. 
Koshkonong v. Burton, 1513, 1516. 
Kost V. Bender, 176, 805. 
Kountz V. Kennedy, 1412, 1415, 

Kraak v. Fries, 182. 
Kraemer v. Ward, 1219. 
Kraft V. Thomas, 39. 
Krakauer v. Chapman, 560, 1790. 
Kramer v. Grant, 1587. 

V. Kramer, 185. 

w. Sandford, 1130, 1134, 1137, 
1139, 1142. 
Krampt's Exr. v. Hatz's Exr., 1753. 
Krask v. Fries, 182. 
Krathwohl v. Dawson, 859. 
Kraus v. Torry, 917. 
Krauss v. Flournoy, 203. 
Krebs v. Blatz, 1698, 1702. 
Kreibohm v. Yancey, 198. 

Kreiss v. Faron, 203. 

Krieg v. Palmer Nat. Bank, 57, 678, 

867, 1706a. 
Krouskop V. Shontz, 154. 
Krueger v. Klinger, 1191. 
Kruse v. The Seffertt & Weise Lumber 

Co., 1221. 
Krumbaar v. Ludeling, 311. 
Kuch V. Cornett, 573, 790. 
Kuefel V. Flanner, 513. 
Kuenzi v. Elvers, 891. 
Kuflic V. Blasser, 1596. 
Kuhn V. McAllister, 1708a. 
Kuhnes v. Cahill, 1643. 
Kuhns V. Bankes, 834. 

V. Gettysburgh Nat. Bank, 1652. 
Kulb V. United States, 1373, 1405, 

Kulenkamp v. Groff, 719, 720. 
Kulp V. Kulp, 1215. 
Kummel v. Germania Sav. Bank, 1711a. 
Kunezi t'. Elvers, 891, 898. 
Kuntz V. Temple, 627, 710. 
Kupferberg v. Horowitz, 964. 
Kuriger v. Joest, 1353. 
Kurth V. Farmers' & Merchants' State 

Bank, 151. 
Kurtz V. Holbrook, 725a. 
Kuth V. Weston, 1021. 
Kyle V. Bostwick, 1317. 

V. Chattahoochee Nat. Bank, 18. 

V.Green, 1133, 1135. 

V. Thompson, 576. 
Kyner v. Shower, 713d. 
Kyser v. Miller, 807. 

Lacey v. Hutchinson, 174. 
Lachenmaier v. Hanson, 63, 65. 
Lachner Bros. v. Adams Express Co., 

Lackey v. Boniff, 182. 
Laclede Bank v. Schuler, 1636, 1636a, 

Lacoste v. Harper, 1079. 
Lacy V. Holbrook, 56. 

V. Kinnaston, 1291. 

V. Woolcot, 369a. 
Ladd V. Baker, 94. 

V. Kenney, 1153. 

V. Rogers, 141. 
La Due v. First Nat. Bank of Kasson, 

725, 783. 
Lafayette v. Merchants' Bank, 1366. 
Lafayette Bank v. Ringel, 56, 1703. 

V. St. Louis Stoneware Co., 386, 

V. State Bank, 392. 

V. Stoneware Co., 1500. 



References are to paragraphs marked 

Lafitte V. Slatter, 1076. 

Laflin & Rand Powder Co. v. Sinshei- 

mer, 174a, 414. 
Lafort V. Carpenter, 336. 
Lafourche Transportation Co. v. Pugh, 

281, 294. 
La France Engine Co. v. Town of Mt. 

Vernon, 377. 
Lagow V. Badollet, 1281a. • 
Lagrue v. Woodruff, 552. 
Lahay v. City Nat. Bank of Denver, 

Lahn v. Koep, 157, 1317a. 
Lalu-man v. Bauman, 815. 
Laidley v. Bright, 32. 
Laing v. Barclay, 110, 502, 1455. 

V. Meader, 1228. 
Laird v. State, 56. 
Lake v. Haynes, 669a. 

V. Little Rock Trust Co., 713a. 

V. Reed, 775. 

V. Stetson, 715. 

V. Trustees, 422, 433. 

V. Tysen, 71. 
Lake Charles Nat. Bank v. J. I. Camp- 
bell Co., 382, 795c. 
Lake County v. Graham, 1537, 1543a, 

Lake Shore, etc., Ry. Co. v. National 

Bank, 1729a. 
Lake Shore Nat. Bank v. Colliery Co., 

289, 998. 
Lake Side Land Co. v. Dromgoole, 

Lake St. El. R. Co. v. Carmichael, 394a. 
Lamar v. Brown, 1385. 
Lamb v. Burke, 812. 

V. Camden & Co., 1740a. 

V. Cecil, 392. 

V. Durant, 1737. 

V. Moberly, 1468a, 1483. 

V. Morris, 3266. 

V. Story, 53. 
Lambarde v. Older, 1432. 
Lambe v. Commonwealth, 448. 
Lamberson v. Love, 189, 1236. 
Lambert, Ex parte, 1255. 

V. Clewly, 185. 

V. Ghiselin, 1050, 1055, 1058a, 

V. Heath, 734a. 

V. Jones, 18, 913, 914. 
Lambeth v. Caldwell, 946. 
Lamine v. Dorrell, 1372&. 
Lamkin v. Edgerly, 1018. 
Lammers v. Sewing Machine Co., 1401. 
Lamon v. French, 514. 
Lamourieux v. Hewitt, 1782, 1784. 
Lampkin v. Nye, 620. 
Lampton v. Haggard, 56. 

Lamson v. Beard, 775. 

Lamwersick v. Boehmer, 369. 

Lan V. Blomberg, 1398. 

Lancaster v. Woodward, 1633, 1647. 

Lancaster County Bank v. Moore, 210. 

V. Smith, 286a. 
Lancaster County Nat. Bank v. Huver, 
326c, 7796. 

V. Taylor, 706, 741, 745, 746. 
Lancey v. Clark, 1221. 
Land v. Cowan, 1428. 
Landa v. Latten Bros., 1731, 1750. 

V. Mechler, 795c, 1227. 
Landauer v. Espenhain, 1198. 

V. Sioux Falls Imp. Co., 819, 1421a. 
Landon v. Bryant, 611, 996. 
Landrum v. Trowbridge, 449, 454, 1152, 

Landry v. Stansbury, 1177, 1179. 
Land Title & Tr. Co. v. Bank, 1663. 
Lane v. Bank of West Tennessee, 1058, 
1070, 1119, 1177. 

V. Evans, 775. 

V. Hyder, 1312. 

V. Jones, 1251, 1272. 

V. Krekle, 93, 136, 139. 

V. Pollard, 183. 

V. Raikoad Co., 1508. 

V. Salter, 94. 

V. Schlemmer, 769a. 

V. Stacey, 704. 

V. Steward, 1093, 1162, 1165. 

V. Union Nat. Bank, 81c. 
Lanfear v. Blossman, 775, 17346, 1734c. 
Lang V. Gale, 624. 

V. Smith, 116, 1504. 
Langan v. Hewitt, 365. 

V. Langan, 203. 
Langdale v. Trimmer, 992. 
Langdon v. Hulls, 1052. 
Lange v. Kohne, 56. 
Langenberger v. Kroeger, 81, 654. 
Langford v. Vamer, 184, 724a, 726a. 
Langhorne v. Robinson, 1556, 1557, 

Langley v. Dennis, 1230. 

t'. Palmer, 649, 650. 
Langston v. Corney, 508. 

V. S. C. R. Co., 1489, 1500, 1507, 
1513, 1514. 
Langton v. Hughes, 200. 

V. Lazarus, 540. 
Lanier v. Clarke, 1406. 

V. OlUff, 248. 

V. Union Mort., etc., Co., 201, 203, 
Lank v. Morrison, 713c?. 
Lannay v. Wilson, 1183a. 
Lanning v. Trust Co. of America, 386. 
Lanning, Antrim & Co. v. Burns, 201. 



References are to paragraphs marked § 

Lannum v. Patterson, 1373a, 
Lansing v. Gaine & Ten Eyck, 63, 370, 
371, 372a, 375. 

V. Lytle, 1506. 
Lantcrmann v. Travous, 1612a. 
Lanussa v. Massicot, 636. 
Lanusso v. Barker, 916. 
Lapeyre v. ^^'ilks, 680. 
Lapice v. Clifton, 775. 
Laplace v. Laplace, 427, 834a, 834b. 
Laporte v. Landry, 1163. 
Laprice v. Bowman, 172. 
Lamed v. liurlington, 1525, 1537, 1623. 
Larsen v. Breene, 1626. 
Larue v. Cloud, 1596. 
La Rue v. Gilkyson, 212. 
Lary v. Young, 1104. 
La Sall(^ Nat . Bank v. Tola Rock & Rye 

Co., 418. 
Laschinaky v. Margolis, 789. 
Lash V. Edgerton, 1252. 
Lashmett v. Prall, 831a. 
La.ssa.s v. McCarty, 777. 
Laster v. Stewart, 247, 249. 
Latham v. Clark, 170. 

V. Fk)ur Mills Co., 94, 400. 

V. Smith, 126. 
Lathrop v. Commercial Bank, 866. 
Latzke v. Albrccht, 179. 
Laub V. Paine, 1390. 

V. Rudd, 793a. 
Laubach v. Purscll, 192. 
Laugenberger v. Kroeger, 1373a. 
Laughlin v. Marshall, 56, 1703. 
Laumeir ?;. Hallock, 1312. 
Laumlier v. Hallock, 1106. 
Law V. Brinker, 174a. 

V. Parnell, 1181a, 1192a. 
Lawatsch v. Cooney, 1468a. 
Lawrason v. Mason, 1797a. 
Lawrence v. American Nat. Bank, 1166, 

V. Bassett, 868, 895. 

V. Clark, 831c. 

V. Dobyn, 644, 700. 

V. Dougherty, 55. 

V. Fussell, 692. 

V. Hammond, 1074, 1158. 

V. Langley, 1175. 

V. McCalmont, 1277a, 1755. 

V. Miller, 1116. 

V. N. Y., etc., R. Co., 1732. 

V. Phipps, 41. 

V. Ralston, 1147. 

V. Schmidt, 1587. 

V. Stonington Bank, 339, 721. 

V. Thom, 1317. 

V. Tucker, 802. 

V. Wright, 261. 
Laws V. Rand, 1587. 

Law's Ext. v. Sutherland, 207. 
Lawson v. Farmers' Bank, 992, 995, 
1039, 1041, 1043, 1044. 

V. First Nat. Bank of Fulton, 199. 

V. Lawson, 25, 26. 

V. Lovejov, 230, 234. 

V. Miller,'l70, 173. 

V. Sherwood, 1051. 

V. Snyder, 1311. 

V. Spencer, 156, 834, 835. 

V. Townes, 1785&. 

V. Weston, 771, 1461, 1462, 1503. 
Lawton v. Howe, 733. 
Laxton v. Peat, 1333. 
Lay V. Au.stin, 416. 

V. Wissman, 752, 758, 758c 778. 
Lazard v. Merchants & Miners Trans- 
portation Co., 1733. 
Lazarus v. Cowie, 725a, 726, 786, 1237. 
Lazell V. Lazell, 1472, 1475, 1478, 

Lazelle t-. Miller, 1317. 
Lazier i'. Horan, 326a, 643, 1230a. 

V. Nevin, 1275, 1276. 
Lea V. Branch Bank, 663. 

V. Cassen, 176. 
Leabo v. Goode, 1300. 
Leach v. Buchanan, 497, 533, 1351. 

V. County of Wilson, 427. 

V. Hewitt, 1083, 1113a, 1172. 

V. Hill, 156. 

V. Nicholds, 850. 
Leadbetter v. Farrow, 300, 311. 
Leahy v. Haworth, 688c, 1754. 

V. Leahy, 241. 
Lean v. Lozardi, 83. 

V. Schultz, 243. 
Leaphart v. Commercial Bank, 1611a. 
Leary v. Miller, 207, 1107. 
Leas V. Walls, 1406. 
Leask v. Dew, 549. 
Leather Mfrs.' Bank v. Morgan, 1370. 
Leatherman v. Hecksher, 775. 
Leathers v. Commercial Ins. Co., 1061. 
Leaugue v. Wasing, 1262. 
Leavens v. Thompson, 303. 
Leavenworth County v. Miller, 1523. 
Leavenworth, etc., R. Co. v. County 
Court, 1559. 

V. Douglas County, 1548. 
Leavitt v. Blatchford, 382. 

V. Connecticut Peat Co., 394, 685. 

V. Putnam, 611, 698d, 724, 996, 

V. Simes, 658, 662, 1051. 

V. Taylor, 177. 

V. Thurston, 795a, 814a. 
Lebanon Bank v. Mangan, 1705. 
Lebanon Nat. Bank v. Long, 189, 1266. 
Lebanon Sav. Bank v. Penney, 156. 



References are to paragraphs marked 

Lebel v. Tucker, 906. 

Le Breton v. Stanley Contracting Co., 

Lecaan v. Kukman, 714a. 
Lechmere v. Fletcher, 1296. 
Lederer v. Union Sav. Bank, 273, 

Ledger v. Ewer, 203, 760. 
Ledlie v. Vrooman, 248. 
Le Due V. Moore, 802. 
Ledwick v. McKim, 842, 1498. 
Lee V. Alexander, 1373a. 

V. Balcom, 38, 39. 

V. Baldwin, 1277a. 

V. Boak, 246. 

V. Boyd, 195a, 200. 

V. Chillicothe Branch Bank, 698. 

V. Clarke, 12816. 

V. Davis, 919. 

V. Dock, 1755, 1785a. 

V. First Nat. Bank, 358a. 

V. Fried & Co. v. Brugman, 1312. 

V. Green, 1260. 

V. Hightower, 199a. 

V. Jilson, 1199. 

V. Levi, 1319. 

V. Love, 1304. 

V. Muggridge, 249. 

V. Oppenheimer, 1289a. 

V. Percival, 81c. 

r;. Pile, 719, 749. 

V. Robinson, 16a. 

V. Rogers, 1525. 

V. Selleck, 883, 899, 902, 910. 

V. Smith, 812, 1610, 1611. 

V. Starbird, 1385. 

V. Turner, 1708^. 

V. 'WTieeler, 256. 

V. Whitney, 796. 

V. Wilcocks, 916, 1454. 

V. Yandell, 1306a. 

V. Zagury, 285. 
Lee Bank v. Spencer, 1109. 
Lee, Fried & Co. v. Brugman, 1312. 
Leech r. Hill, 713d. 
Leeds v. Lancashire, 60, 79, 151, 154. 

I'. Vail, 681. 
Leeper v. Paschal, 1341. 
Lefargue v. Harrison, 560, 1799. 
Le Fevre v. Loyd, 312. 
Leffingwell r. Warren, 1525. 

V. White, 1103. 
Leffler Co. v. Dickerson, 81c, 88. 
Leftlv V. Mills, 572, 580, 616, 926, 939, 

i036, 1208, 1466. 
Legett V. Jones, 54, 54a, 1708d, 
Leggt). Legg, 254, 891. 

V. Vinal, 933. 
Legge V. Thorpe, 1079. 
Leggett V. Raymond, 1759. 

Legier v. Sutherland, 725a. 
Legro V. Staple, 21, 53, 1644. 
Lehigh, etc., Coal Co. v. West Superior, 

etc., Co., 68. 
Lehman v. Jones, 1144. 

V. Press, 775. 

V. San Diego, 1530, 1531. 

V. Young, 1734d. 
Lehnard v. Sidway, 4976, 508. 
Leightman v. Kadetska, 70. 
Leighton v. Bowen, 177. 
Leitch V. Wells, 800a, 1708g'. 
Leitensdorfer v. Webb, 1200. 
Leith V. Elphiston, 1384. 
Leith Banking Co. v. Walker's Trustees, 

Leland v. Famham, 728. 

V. Parriott, 701. 
Lemerisc, In re, 196. 
Lemmert v. Guthrie Bros., 1754, 1788. 
Lemmon v. Strong, 1769. 

V. Whitman, 1317. 
Lemon v. Dean, 112. 
Lenheim v. Fay, 789. 
Lennig v. Ralston, 12, 869, 898, 921, 

Lenox v. Cook, 1213. 

V. Leverett, 943, 1046. 

V. Prout, 1311. 

V. Roberts, 1036, 1039. 
Le Neve v. Le Neve, 802. 
Lennon v. Grauer, 669a, 1356. 
Lent V. Padelford, 1785. 
Leonard v. Chicago, etc., Ry. Co., 1739, 

V. Dougherty, 850. 

V. Draper, 673, 676, 714. 

V. Gary^ 1104. 

V. Hastmgs, 1106. 

V. Leonard, 213, 1231. 

V. Mason, 73. 

V. Olson, 1144, 1145. 

V. PhilUps, 1385, 1398. 

V. Vredenbiu-gh, 1764, 1767. 

V. Walker, 108. 

V. Wilson, 1400. 
Leonhardt v. Citizens' Bank, 1761, 

1769, 1773. 
Lerch Hardware Co. v. Columbia Bank, 

Lemed v. Johns, 303. 
Leroux v. Brown, 887. 
Le Roy v. Beard, 885. 
Leschen v. Guy, 806a, 1303. 
Leslie v. Bassett, 831a, 831c. 

V. Hastings, 497, 4976. 

V. Merrill, 800a. 
Lesser v. Scholze, 1376, 1417. 
Lester v. Garland, 626. 

V. Given, 1634, 1637. 



References are to paragraphs marked § 

Lester v. Snyder, 1230. 
Lester-Whitney Shoe Co. v. Oliver, 

1566, 1590, 1596. 
Le Tourneux v. Gilliss, 769a, 815. 
Lett V. Morris, 16a, 23. 
Le Tulle Mercantile Co. t;.Rugeley, 184. 
Leverone i'. Hildreth, 185. 
Levi V. Earle, 249. 

V. Mundell, 713d. 
Levin, In re, 1731. 
Levins v. Briggs, 62. 
Levy V. Allien, 205. 

V. Bank of U. S., 334, 533, 1655, 

V. Cadet, 374. 

V. Drew, 610. 

V. Du Bose, 800a. 

V. First Nat. Bank, 1369. 

V. Gadsby, 702a. 

V. Gillis, 1646. 

V. Huvver, 183. 

V. Peters, 1165, 1586, 1634a. 

V. Pyne, 358a. 

V. Roth, 1317. 

V. Wagner, 713b, 1339. 

V. Webster, 1752. 

V. Wilson, 287. 
Levy & Cohn Mule Co. v. Kauffman, 

184, 203, 790. 
Levy & Son v. Stegman, 196. 
Lewin v. Brunette, 525. 

V. Greig, 504. 
Lewis V. Bakewell, 1000. 

V. Bannister, 858. 

V. Brehme, 314, 315, 1156. 

V. Brown, 1309. 

V. Commercial Nat. Bank, 1173. 

V. Commissioners of Bourbon 
County, 1550, 1552. 

f. Cosgrove, 193. 

V. Davison, 1260. 

V. Dunlap, 719, 720a, 721, 722. 

V. First Nat. Bank, Sid, 303, 
1713a, 1714. 

V. Gompertz, 982, 983. 

V. Hanchman, 1335a. 

V. Harvey, 710. 

V. Hodapp, 1351. 

V. International Bank, 16186, 1637. 

V. Jones, 1289a, 1331. 

V. Kramer, 552, 554, 1377. 

V. Lady Parker, 728. 

V. Lee, 243. 

V. Long, 726a, 1338. 

V. McElvain, 1565. 

V. M'Kee, 1745. 

V. Monahan, 704. 

V. Owen, 896. 

V. Parker, 728. 

V. Pead, 211. 

Lewis V. Pctayvin, 1470, 1478. 

V. Pickering, 1425. 

V. Pima County, 1486. 

V. Reilley, 370a, 372, 683. 

V. The Springville Banking Co., 
1731, 1732. 

V. Tipton, 44, 88. 

V. Traders' Bank, 16a. 

V. Warden, 1326. 

V. Wilson, 32. 
Lewis, Hubbard & Co. v. Montgomery 

Supply Co.. 1590, 1592, 1596. 
Lewis IVIercantile Co. v. Harris, 1225. 
Lewisohn v. Kent, etc., Co., 93, 100. 
Ijcwiston Falls Bank v. Leonard, 1029a. 
Lewistown Bank v. L(>onard, 9G3. 
Lexington t-. Butler, 10a, 729, 1496, 

1497, 1505, 1516, 1537, 1542, 1550. 
Leyson v. Davis, 24, 24a. 
Libbyr. Mikclborg,88. 

V. Pierce, 997. 
Lick V. Faulkner, 1247. 
Lickbarrow v. Mason, 803, 1634, 1727, 

1730, 1733, 1735, 1744. 
Lieber v. Fourth Nat. Bank, 672. 

t'. Goodrich, 56. 
Liebsoher v. Kraus, 400, 418. 
Lienkauf Banking Co. v. Hancy, 879. 
Life Ins. Co. v. Bd. of Education, 1537. 

!;. Pendleton, 9, 1074. 
Liggett V. Weed, 454, 508. 
Liggett Spring & Axle Co.'s Appeal, 

Light V. Killinger, 1414. 

t;. Kingsbury, 611, 996. 

f. Lieninger, 1432. 

V. Stevens, 1181a, 1227, 1250. 
Lightbody v. Ontario Bank, 737, 1676a. 
Lightfoot V. Tenant, 200. 
Lightner v. Hill, 640. 
Lilley v. Miller, 1105, 1595, 1596. 

V. Petteway, 1152. 
Lilly V. Barker, 707. 

V. Petteway, 1149. 
Limerick Bank v. Adams, 775. 
Limerick Nat. Bank v. Howard, 889. 
Lime Rock Bank v. Hewitt, 623. 

V. Macomber, 1190. 
Lime Rock F. & M. I. Co. v. Hewitt, 53. 
Lincoln v. Bassett, 1328. 

V. Fitch, 1217. 

t;. Hinsey, 713c. 

V. Iron County, 1537. 

V. Smith, 311. 
Lincoln, etc., Co. v. Allen, 1289. 
Lincoln & Kennebec Bank v. Hemmatt, 

V. Page, 658. 
Lincoln Nat. Bank v. Schoen, 3G8, 369. 
Lindauer v. Fourth Nat. Bank, 336, 339. 



References are to paragraphs marked § 

Lindell v. Rokes, 183. 

Lindenberger v. Beall, 1021, 1043, 

Lindenschmidt v. Vallee, 833. 
Linder Hardware Co. v. Pacific Sugar 

Corpn., 1181a. 
Linderman v. Farquharson, 186. 

V. Guldin, 1001. 
Linders v. Bradwell, 1220. 
Lindh v. Crowley, 357. 
Lindley v. First Nat. Bank, 496, 560. 
V. Hoffman, 849. 
V. Sullivan, 62a. 
Lindo V. Unsworth, 628, 1041, 1043. 
Lindsay v. McClelland, 1706. 
V. Button, 724a. 
V. Price, 608. 

I'. Sonora Gold Min. & Mill Co., 
Lindsey v. McClelland, 56, 1701. 
Lindus v. Bradwell, 252, 681. 

V. Melrose, 402. 
Line of Packets v. Bellamy Mfg. Co., 

Lingg t'. Blummer, 1192. 
Lingle V. Cook, 1250, 1251. 
Link V. Jackson, 776, 814a, 819. 
Linkous v. Hale, 962. 
Linn v. Carson, 1284. 
Linnard's Appeal, 827. 
Linnell v. Leon, 188a. 
Linthicum v. Caswell, 1147, 1149, 1165, 

Linton v. Chestnut-Gibbons Grocery 
Co., 995. 
i;. National Life Ins. Co., 1458a. 
Linville v. Savage, 8346. 

V. Welch, 1586. 
Lionberger v. Kinealy, 1221, 1245. 

V. Mayer, 392. 
Lippman v. First Nat. Bank, 294. 
Lipscomb v. De Lemos, 1227. 
Lipsett V. Hassard, 80, 1290. 
Lipsmeier v. Vehlsage, 185, 1966. 
Liszman v. Marx, 713d. 
Litchfield v. Falconer, 80, 199a. 
Litchfield Bank v. Peck, 781. 
Littauer v. Goldman, 732, 733, 733a, 

Littell, In re, Estate of, 790. 

V. Hord, 764. 
Little V. Blunt, 1215. 
V. Bradley, 1187. 
V. Derby, 1407. 
V. Duncan, 230. 
V. Nabb, 1764. 
V. Phoenix Bank, 56, 1570, 1587, 

1588, 1651. 
V. Slackford, 35. 
V. Stokely, 195a. 

Little V. Sturgis, 725. 
Littledale v. Mayberry, 954. 
Littlefield v. Hodge, 51a, 800a. 
V. Perkins, 201. 
V. Shee, 182, 240, 249. 
Little Miami, etc., R. Co. v. Dodds, 

Little Rock v. State Bank, 422. 
Little Rock Tr. Co. v. Martin, 1375, 

Livaudais v. Denis, 329. 
Livermore v. Blood, 724a, 802. 

V. Truesdalc, 354. 
Livingston v. Roosevelt, 488. 
Livingston County v. First Nat. Bank 
of Portsmouth, 1523a, 1537, 1539. 
Lizardi v. Cohen, 896. 
Llewellyn v. Winckworth, 299. 
Lloyd V. Harper, 1770a. 
V. Howard, 667. 

V. Keach, 753, 759, 760, 763, 767. 
V. Lee, 240, 249. 
V. McGarr, 961, 1055, 1439. 
V. National Bank, 3346. 
V. OUver, 132. 
V. Sandilands, 1648. 
V. Scott, 760. 

V. West Branch Bank, 423. 
Loan Asso. t-. Topeka, 734a, 1520, 1522. 
Loan & Exchange Bank v. Miller, 1630. 
Loan & Savings Bank v. Farmers & 

Merchants' Bank, 1037. 
Lobdell V. Baker, 734. 
V. Niphler, 1305. 
I'. Slawson, 1425. 
Lochenmayer v. Fogarty, 1230a. 
Lock V. Tulford, 726a. 
Locke V. Huling, 581. 

V. Leonard Silk Co., 1198. 
V. Locke, 1243. 

V. Merchants' Nat. Bank, 76. 
Locker v. Kuecheumiester, 36a. 
Lockett's Case, 1345. 
Lockhart v. Ballard, 175. 
V. Hullinger, 195a. 
V. Moss, 499, 499a. 
Lock Haven State Bank v. Smith, 187. 
Locklin v. Moore, 1215. 
Lockner v. Holland, 205. 
Lockwood V. Coley, 1187. 
V. Comstock, 370, 373. 
V. Crawford, 654, 983, 996. 
V. Lindsey, 62, 867. 
V. Mechanics' Bank, 1708<i. 
V. Railroad Co., 1740a. 
V. Twitchell, 189. 
Lodge V. Dicas, 1295, 1301. 
V. Lewis, 741, 812, 1181a. 
t'. Phelps, 907. 
V. Spooner, 1454. 



References are to paragraphs marked § 

Loeff t;. Tanssig, 1789. 
Loewen v. Forsec, 822, 831a. 
Loflan I'. Goben, 203. 
Loftin V. Hill, 7956. 
Log V. McClurc, 1230. 
Logan V. Attix, 1200. 

V. Ca.ssell, 1 192. 

V. Ogdcn, 709, 1757. 

V. Pluinmer, 200. 

V. Smith, S34«, S34fe. 
Logan County v. Eagir, 1590. 
Lohman r. Crouch, S7, 170. 
Loizcaux v. Krcindcr, 1230. 
Loniax v. Colorado Nat. Bank, 183, IS.'j. 

V. I'icot, 700. 
Lombardo v. IjOiiibardo, 1377. 
London & County banking Co. v. 

Groomo, 1(333, 1034. 
London & S. F. Bank v. Mooro, 89S. 
London Bank of Australia v. White, 

London, etc.. Banking Co. v. London 

River Platte Branch 1708. 
London, etc., Bank v. Parrot, 1321, 

1328, 1790. 
London 8. W. Bank v. Wentworth, 143. 
London Sav. Fund Soc. i'. Hagerstown 

Savings Bank, 1705, 1700. 
Lone Star Leather Co. v. Nat. Bank, 

Long V. Bailie, 1484. 

V. Campbell, 713a. 

V. Colburn, 298, 307, 406. 

V. Crawford, 724. 

V. Hoedle, 1219. 

V. Johnson, 205, 800a. 

V. Long, 923. 

V. Moor, 1377. 

V. N. Y. Cent. R. Co., 1740a. 

r. Patton, 1290, 1316. 

t'. SpruU, 1269. 

V. Storv, 370. 

V. Strauss, 37, 1707a, 
Long Bros. v. Eckert, 1587, 1588. 
Longchamp v. Denny, 1687. 
Long Island, etc., Co. v. Columbus R. 

Co., 68. 
Lonier v. Ann Arbor Savings Bank, 293. 

V. State Savings Bank, 1639, 1643. 
Lonsdale v. Brown, 9, 576. 

V. Lafavette Bank, 561, 897. 
Lookout Bank v. AuU, 790, 1189a. 
LoomLs V. Fay, 1311. 

V. Mowrv, 797. 

V. Ruck, 858. 

V. Spencer, 210. 
Loomis Inst. v. Hard, 1769. 
Loose V. Loose, 1152, 1157. 
Lord V. Appleton, 1016. 

V. Hall, 253, 277, 681. 

Ixjrd V. Ocean Bank, 793a, 831a. 

I'. Ru.ssell, 63. 
Loring, Ex parte, 1281. 

V. Gumey, 89. 

V. Hailing, 620. 

V. Steini'man, 240. 
Ix)rimer v. Fairchild, 1317a. 
Lormer v. Bain, 833. 
Los Angeles Nat. Bank v. Wallace, 

Losec r. Dunkin, 608. 
Ix)ucks r. Johnson, 24. 
Loud V. Collins, t)7. 
Loudcrmilk v, Loudermilk, 81, ISO, 

Ix)uis De Jonge & Co. v. Woodport 

Hotel & Land Co., 814a. 
Ixniisiana v. Wood 1309, 1491&. 
Louisiana Bank v. Citizens' Bank, 1003. 

V. Laveillc, 1733. 

r. U. S. Bank, 1680. 
Louisiana Ins. Co. i'. Shamburgh, 1146. 
Louisiana Nat. Bank i'. Citizens' 

Bank, li'AWui. 
Louisiana State Bank i'. Buhler, 1074. 

V. Ellery, 998. 

I'. Gaennie, 824. 

V. Orleans Nav. Co., 1530, 1550, 

I'. Rowell, 1012, 1014. 
Louisville V. Sav. Bank, 1550. 
Louisville & Na-shville R. Co. v. All- 
good, 1743. 

t'. Barkhouse, 1727, 1730, 1730a, 
1731a, 17.')0. 

V. Pferdmenges, 1733a. 
Ix)uLsville Coal Min. Co. v. Interna- 
tional Trust Co., 665. 
Louisville, etc., Co. v. Rogers, 1739. 
Louisville, etc., Packet Co. v. Rogers, 

Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Caldwell, 
161, 413, .504, 566. 

t'. County of Daverson, 1535a. 

V. Louisville Tr. Co., 1533, 1537. 
Louisville Man. Co. v. Welsh, 1785a, 

Louisville R. Co. v. Louisville Tr. Co., 

389, 392. 
Louisville Tobacco Warehouse Co. v. 
Gist, 1181a. 

V. Stewart, 81d. 
Louisville Tr. Co. v. Louisville R. Co., 

1776, 1777. 
Loury's Admr. v. Western Bank, 899. 
Louviere v. Laubray, 1205. 
Love V. Ardmore Stock Exch., 1644. 

V. Nelson, 615. 

V. Peers, 187o. 

i;. Wells, 69. 



References are to paragraphs marked § 

Ix)veday i'. Anderson, 1092. 
Lovejoy v. Citizens Bank, 720a. 

t;. Inhabitants of Foxcroft, 422, 

V. Lee, 1673a. 
V. Spafford, 128, 3696. 
V. Whipple, 65, 69. 
Lovelace v. Lovelace, 184, 193. 
Loveland v. Shepherd, 1769. 
Lovoll t;. Evertson, 1182, 1192, 1195. 
V. Hammond Co., 1468a. 
t;. Hill, 36. 
V. Martin, 1461. 
V. Williams, 308a. 
Lovett V. Comwcll, 1587, 1596. 
Lovenburg v. Henry, 43. 
Loving «;. Anderson, 53. 
Lovinger v. First Nat. Bank, 1369. 
Low V. Argrove, 1594. 
V. Blodgett, 1199. 
V. Chifney, 814. 
V. Copestake, 1193. 
V. Howard, 1152, 1161. 
V. People, 1664. 
V. Treadwcll, 157. 
Lowden v. Nat. Bank, 1405, 
Lowe V. Beckwith, 17856. 
V. Bliss, 54. 
V. Murphy, 38. 
t;. Peers, 196. 
V. Reddan, 1311. 
LoweU V. Bickford, 189, 205, 831a, 
1191, 1203. 
V. Boston, 1522. 
I'. Daniels, 243. 
I'. Gage, 700a, 1757. 
Lowell lYust Co. V. Pratt, 43, 616, 1005, 

Lowenstein v. Knoph, 104, 108. 

V. Sorge, 1760. 
Lowenstein & Bros. v. Bresler, 1587, 

Lowenthal, Ex parte, 943, 986. 

V. Chappell, 1215a. 
Lowery v. Danforth, 573. 
V. Murrell, 737, 1677. 
V. Scott, 1030, 1031. 
V. Steward, 16a. 
Lowes V. Mazaredo, 753, 670, 763. 
Lowndes i'. Anderson, 822, 1680. 
Lowrey t-. Danforth, 108, 164, 665, 742, 
V. Murrell, 1269. 
Lowrie v. Zunkee, 130. 
LowT>' t'. Adams, 17856. 
I'. McLain, 1398. 
t;. Milwaukee Nat. Bank, 1266. 
V. Steele, 1092. 
Lowry Nat. Bank v. Fickett, 1266. 
V. Hazard, 193. 

Lowry Nat. Bank v. Maddox, 664a. 
Loyd V. Kansas City N. & B. R. Co., 
V. McCaffrey, 1644. 
t;. Osborne, 1592. 
Loyd & Co. V. Matthews & Rice, 393. 
Lubbering v. Kohlbrecher, 1373a, 1416. 
Lucas V. Castelow, 196a. 
V. Dorrien, 1713. 
I'. Haynes, 695, 1468. 
t'. Ladew, 449, 617, 622, 8916. 
V. Marsh, 1195. 
V. Pitney, 382, 383, 384, 385. 
V. San Francisco, 387. 
Luce V. Shaff, 85. 
Luck V. Faulkner, 1247. 
Luckbarrow v. Mason, 1730. 
Lucker v. Iba, 814a. 
Ludden v. Marstcrs, 1278a. 
Ludlow V. Van Rensselaer, 913. 

I'. Woodward, 803. 
Ludwick V. Hunsinger, 1458a. 
Ludwig I'. Inglehart, 1321. 
Luellen v. Hare, 144. 
Luff f. Pope, 451. 
Luke V. Koenen, 164. 

t'. Lyde, 10. 
LuUey v. Morgan, 195a. 
Lumber Co. v. Eldridge, 1362. 

I'. Land Co., 796, 799. 
Lumberman's Bank i'. Pratt, 370a. 
Lumberman's Nat. Bank of Portland v. 

Campbell, 714, 790. 
Lumley v. Musgrave, 1266. 

V. Palmer, 504. 
Lundie v. Robertson, 1158. 
Luning v. Wise, 595. 
Lunt t'. Adams, 603, 1210. 

V. Bank of North America, 1643, 

V. Silver, 1387. 
Luqueer v. Prosser, 1779. 
Lusk V. Smith, 370. 
Luflter t'. Robinson, 415. 
Luth V. Stewart, 1395. 
Luther v. Crawford, 53, 89. 
V. Wheeler, 420, 1530. 
Lybrand v. Fuller, 787. 
Lycoming v. Union, 1556. 
Lyde v. County of Winnebago, 1497. 
Lyman v. Bank of U. S., 1273. 
V. Gedney, 1232. 
V. Warner, 1181a. 
Lynch v. Bragg, 1431. 
V. Dodge, 259. 
V. First Nat. Bank, 1607o. 
t'. Goldsmith, 719, 1703. 
t-. Hicks, 1404. 
V. Kennedy, 859. 
V. Levy, 713e. 



References are to paragraphs marked § 

Lynch v. Lyons, 1227. 

V. Mead, 664. 

V. Morse, 125. 

V. Reynolds, 1307. 
Lynchburg v. Norvell, 1533, 1534. 
Lynchburg, etc., R. Co. v. Dameron, 

386, 1530. 
Lynchburg Nat. Bank v. Scott, 197, 

198, 769a, 807, 808. 
Lynde v. Winnebago County, 1492a, 

1527, 1527a, 1529, 1530, 1537, 1550. 
Lyndon Sav. Bank v. International Co., 

88, 394a, 679, 710, 7136. 
Lyndonville Nat. Bank v. Fletcher, 538, 

1364, 1369. 
Lynds v. Van Valkenburgh, 164, 814. 
Lynn Nat. Bank v. Smith, 331, 995a. 
Lyon V. Aiken, 1290. 

V. Ewing, 700, 824. 

V. Holt, 1324. 

V. Lyman, 1219. 

V. Marshall, 100. 

V. Martin, 61. 

V. Robertson, 205. 
Lyon County v. Saving Bank, 148, 

1496, 1499. 
Lyon, Potter Co. v. First Nat. Bank, 

365, 386, 781a, 812. 
Lyons v. Holmes, 74, 112. 

V. Miller, 284, 305, 731, 740a, 1358. 

V. Union Exch. Nat. Bank, 1604. 

V. West water, 189. 
Lysaght v. Bryant, 667a, 987, 989. 
Lytle V. Wheeler, 172. 


Maas V. M., K. & T. R. Co., 1502. 
Maber v. Massias, 161. 
Mabie v. Johnson, 775. 
Macaltimer v. Croasdale, 193. 
Macann v. Atchafalaya Bank, 966. 
Macara v. Watson, 1390. 
Macaulay v. Holsten, 184, 191. 
MacDonald v. Piper, 1470. 
Mace V. Kennedy, 166, 789. 
Macey v. Williams, 24a. 
Macferson v. Thoytes, 1219. 
MacGregor v. Dover R. Co., 377. 

V. Rhodes, 1356. 
Machado v. Fernandez, 609, 1341. 
Macheath v. Haldimand, 445. 
Machell v. Kinnear, 1193. 
Macintosh v. EHot Nat. Bank, 1370. 
Mackay v. Holland, 859. 

V. Peterson, 851. 

V. Ramsay, 344. 

V. St. Mary's Church, 265, 266. 
MacKenzie v. Barrett, 1646. 
Mackersy v. Ramsays, 341. 

Mackey v. Mackey, 1478, 1481. 

V. Fulerton, 1250. 
Mackin v. Ballock, 742. 

V. Shannon, 200. 
Mackintosh v. Gibbs, 47, 48, 62, 62a, 

671, 899, 1039. 
Macklin v. Crutcher, 363. 
Macky v. Craig, 574. 
Maclae v. Sutherland, 361. 
Macleod v. Snee, 51, 108. 
Macloon v. Smith, 621. 
Macon County v. Rodgers, 1458a. 
MacRitchie v. Johnson, 789a. 
Macungie Sav. Bank v. Hattenstein, 

Madden v. Gaston, 65, 144. 
Maddox v. Duncan, 669, 688^, 708a, 
1090, 1113, 1781. 

V. Graham, 1489. 

V, Lewis, 1318. 

V. Wyman, 154, 835. 
Maddur v. Bevan, 1245. 
Mader v. Cool, 180, 769a. 
Madeville v. Welch, 451. 
Madison County Bank v. Graham, 

789a, 795&. 
Madison, etc., Plankroad Co. v. Water- 
road Co. V. Watertown Plankroad 

Co., 384, 386. 
Madison, etc., R. Co. v. Norwich Sav. 

Society, 386. 
Madison Square Bank v. Pierce, 1237. 
Madry v. Sulphur Springs, etc.. Turn- 
pike Co., 861. 
Maffat V. Greene, 786, 790, 1343. 
Magee v. Atkinson, 305, 740a. 

V. Badger, 775, 814. 
Magel V. Milligan, 573. 
Magill V. Manson, 170. 

V. Merrie, 350a. 
Magnin v. Dinsmore, 1740a. 
Magoffin V. Boyle Nat. Bank, 90a. 
Magoun v. Walker, 962, 969. 
Magruder v. Bank of Georgetown, 1177. 

V. Peter, 1281. 

V. Union Bank, 591, 1175, 1179. 
Maguire v. Donovan, 1230. 

V. Eichmeier, 417, 1410a, 1417, 
Mahaiwe Bank v. Douglass, 1378, 1387. 
Mahan v. Sherman, 80. 
Mahaska County Bank v. Christ, 156. 
Maher v. Brown, 1644. 

V. First Nat. Bank of Laramie, 

V. Overton, 411. 
Mahier v. Le Blanc, 630. 
Mahone v. Central Bank, 142. 
Mahoney v. Ashlin, 8. 

V. Fitzpatrick, 45a. 



References are to paragraphs marked § 

Mahoney Mining Co. v. Anglo Cali- 
fornia Bank, 1616a, 1630. 

V. Banks, 383. 
Mahorner v. Hooe, 866. 
Mahurin v. Pearson, 1431. 
Maiden ;;. Webster, 94. 
Maier v. Canovan, 1272, 1300a. 
Maillard v. Duke of Argyle, 1267. 
Main v. Casserly, 386. 

V. Hilton, 130. 
Mainer v. Spurlock, 979. 
Mainwaring v. Newman, 354. 
Maitland v. Citizens' Nat. Bank, 775, 

831a, 832a. 
Major V. Symmes, 248. 
Makepeace v. Harvard College, 154. 

V. Moore, 265. 
Malbon v. Southard, 267, 680. 
Malcomson v. Malcomson, 485. 
Maiden Bank v. Baldwin, 649. 
Male V. Roberts, 874, 892. 
Maledon v. Leflore, 1226, 1311, 1328. 
Mallett V. Thompson, 1296, 1333, 1334. 
Malone v. Keener, 1763. 

V. Lebus, 181. 
Maloney v. Clark, 1663. 

V. State, 741. 

V. Stephens, 222. 
Mallory v. Fitzgerald, 80. 
Malott V. Jewett, 1051. 
Malpas V. Lowenstine, 1262. 
Maltz V. Fletcher, 81a, 203. 
Mammon v. Hartman, 710, 713a. 
Manchester Bank v. Fellows, 1003, 

1005a, 1039, 1045, 1212. 
Manchet v. Cason, 1398. 
Mandeville v. Union Bank, 107. 

V. Welch, 15, 16a, 17, 18, 21, 22, 
Manegold v. Dulan, 1183. 
Maness v. Henry, 1290, 1416. 
Manhattan Ins. Co. v. Warwick, 222. 
Manhattan Liquor Co. v. Joseph A. 

Magnus & Co., 389. 
Manhattan Sav. Inst. v. New York 
Exch. Bank, 145. 

V. New York Nat. Bank, 1501fe. 
Maniort v. Roberts, 139, 1194. 
Manistee Nat. Bank v. Seymore, 164. 
Mankey v. Hoyt, 1586. 
Manley v. Boycot, 721, 1336, 1337. 

V. Geagan, 566. 

V. Park, 1181a. 
Mann v. Brown, 1317. 

V. Chandler, 403, 405. 

V. King, 274. 

V. Lent, 167. 

V. Merchants' Loan & Trust Co., 
728, 769a, 831a, 850. 

V. Moors, 1023, 1029o. 

Mann v. National Bank, 779&, 812. 

V. Sutton, 32. 
Manney v. Coit, 1109a. 
Manning v. City of Devil's Lake, 1522. 

V. Hayes, 369. 

V. Lyon, 1261, 1264, 1276. 

V. Maroney, 1105. 

V. McClure, 829a 830, 832. 
Manning, Gushing & Co. v. Alger, 1789. 
Manrow v. Durham, 1759. 
Mansfield v. Gorbin, 185. 

V. Edwards, 720a. 

V. Graham, 710, 1340. 
Mansfield Hotel Co. v. Bailey, 667. 
Manson v. Felton, 259. 
Manton v. Robinson, 833. 
Manufacturers Bank v. Cont. Nat. 
Bank, 336. 

V. Thomson, 1622a. 
Manufacturers & Traders' Bank «;. 

Love, 303, 304. 
Manufacturers' Com. Co. v. Blitz, 664a. 
Manufacturers, etc.. Bank v. Follett, 
716, 1398. 

V. Winship, 363. 
Manufacturers Nat. Bank v. Barnes, 

V. Ewell, 7796. 

t;. Swift, 1621. 

V. Thompson, 1191. 
Manufacturing Co. v. Railway Co., 

1728, 1729a. 
Manzy v. Flint, 203. 
Mapes V. German Bank of Tilden, 381, 

Marble Falls Ferry v. Spitler, 33. 
Marbourg v. Brinkman, 605, 1595a. 
March v. Barnet, 1341. 

V. Foulton County, 1532, 1538, 
1544, 1545. 
Marchington v. Vernon, Guildhall, 

Marcy v. Township of Oswego, 1537, 

Mare v. Charles, 412. 
Margetson v. Aitken, 1167. 

V. Glynn, 1740. 
Marienthal v. Taylor, 713. 
Maries v. Polleys, 1317. 
Marine & Fire Ins. Bank v. Jauncey, 

Marine Bank v. Clements, 394. 

V. Fulton Bank, 325, 334. 

V. Smith, 658. 

W.Wright, 1734, 1734a, 17346, 
1734c, 1748. 
Marine Nat. Bank v. Nat. City Bank, 

540, 6696, 1603, 1661. 
Marinette v. Tomahawk Common 

Council, 1524. 



References are to paragraphs marked § 

Marion v. Logansport R. Co., 425. 

V. McClellan 71. 
Marion, etc., R. Co. v. Hodge, 425^ 482. 
Marion Gravel Road Co. v. Kessmger, 

Marion Trust Co. v. Crescent Loan, 

etc., Co., 383, 394a. 
Marion Water Co, v. City of Marion, 

Market & Fulton Nat. Bank v. Sargent, 

142, 143. 
Markey v. Corey, 688c. 
Markham v. Cover, 360. 

V. Hazen, 487. 
Markland v. McDaniel, 1103. 
Markle v. Hatfield, 731. 
Marks v. Bridges, 1713a. 

V. First Nat. Bank, 184, 790, 
Marling v. Fitzgerald, 183. 

V. Jones, 189, 726, 790, 1236. 

V. Milwaukee Realty Co., 1230. 
Marmion v. McClelland, 71. 
Marquardt Sav. Bank t;. Freund, 1221, 

Marquette Nat. Bank v. Steams, 164. 
Marr v. Johnson, 987, 1027. 
Marrett v. Equitable Ins. Co., 53. 
Marrigan v. Page. 36a, 38. 
Marryatts v. White, 1252. 
Mars V. Mars, 284, 573, 812, 1191. 
Marsh v. Chown, 81c, 189. 

V. Fulton County, 1538. 

V. Gold, 358a. 

V. Hayford, 1197. 

V. Low, 174a. 

V. Marshall, 782. 

V. Maxwell, 1053. 

V. Newell, 1199, 1201. 

V. Pedder, 740, 1271. 

V. Small, 775. 

V. Ward 94. 
Marshall v. Bait.* & O. R. Co., 188. 

V. Bell, 195. 

V. Bishop, 1326. 

V. Clary, 513. 

V. Drescher, 143. 

V. Gougler, 1391. 

V. Marshall, 1260. 

V. Mitchell, 1104, 1110, 1133, 1135. 

V. Miirphy, 403. 

V. Myres, 265, 573, 1223. 

V. Rutton, 243. 

V. Russell, 69. 

V. Silliman, 1557. 

V. Sonneman, 972, 979a. 
Marshall County v. Cook, 1551. 
Marshall Field Co. v. Oren Ruff com Co., 

1219, 1316. 
Marshall Mfg. Co. v. Harkinson, 1251. 

Marshall Nat. Bank v. O'Neal, 386, 

713c, 713d, 774, 775. 
Marsh, Merwin & Leinmon v. Wheeler, 

M arson v. Petit, 1378. 
Marston v. Allen, 667, 748, 1468a. 
Martendale v. Follett, 1386, 1411. 
Martin v. Bacon, 507. 

V. Bank, 3266, 1506, 1513. 

V. Bank of U. S., 1479, 1695, 1696. 

t;. Baugh, 1296. 

V. Berry, 879. 

V. Boure, 6. 

V. Boyd, 713a. 

V. Brown, 972. 

I'. Chauntry, 60. 

V. Cole, 719. 

V. Coles, 1748. 

V. Foster, 161, 164. 

t'. Franklin, 917, 1454. 

V. Funk, 24a. 

V. Ger.-Am. Nat. Bank, 831a, 

V. Grabinsky, 1114. 

V. Home Bank, 1226, 1278a, 1590, 
1592, 1594. 

V. Ingersoll, 993, 1041, 1043. 

V. Jesse French Piano, etc., Co., 
48, 1219. 

V. Ku-k, 370, 373. 

V. Lamb, 1188. 

V. Lewis, 80, 88, 110. 

V. Marshall, 720a. 

t;. Martin, 891, 892, 1612&. 

V. McReynolds, 1183a. 

V. Morgan, 1226, 1596, 1630. 

V. Muncy, 532. 

V. Munroe, 1290. 

V. O'Bannon, 748. 

V. Pennock, 1269. 

V. Perqua, 1104. 

V. Shumatte, 41. 

V. Smith, 418, 849a. 

V. Smylle, 851. 

V. Stone, 46, 108. 

V. Suber, 248. 

V. Trowbridge, 1436. 

V. Turner, 203. 

V. Wade, 196. 

V. Walton, 3696, 373. 

V. Webb, 392. 

V. Winslow, 607, 609, 1147, 1155. 
Martina v. Muhlke, 837. 
Martindale v. Stotter, 795a. 
Martineau v. McCollum, 834. 
Martyn v. Lamar, 1787. 
Martz V. State Nat. Bank of North 

Tonawanda, 1181a. 
Marvin v. McCallum, 63, 758, 1190. 

V. Stone, 1283. 



References are to paragraphs marked § 

Marvine v. Hymers, 385. 

Marx & Bliem v. Luling Co-operative 

Assoc, 1399, 1785. 
Marye v. Parsons, 448. 
Maryland Fertilizer Co. v. Newman, 

Marzetti v. Williams, 479. 
Mascolo V. Montesanto, 180, 185. 
Maslin's Exrs. v. Hiltt, 1062. 
Mason v. Barff, 499a. 

V. Bradley, 1387. 

V. Burton, 1202. 

V. Campbell, 1289a. 

V. Dousay, 552, 867, 888. 

V. Eldred, 1296. 

V. Franklin, 640, 651, 930. 

V. Frick, 1500. 

V. Gardiner, 63. 

V. Hunt, 508, 509, 551. 

V. Hyde, 67. 

V. Jordan, 205. 

V. Kilcourse, 963. 

V. Mason, 80. 

V. Metcalf, 41. 

V. Morgan, 240, 254, 681. 

V. Noonam, 728. 

V. Peters, 1-327. 

V. Pritchard, 640, 1030, 1124, 
1755, 1772. 

V. Rumsey, 362, 488. 

V. Waite, 1469, 1687. 

V. Wickersham, 1300. 
Masonic Sav. Bank v. Banks, 3346. 
Maspero v. Pedcsclaux, 1000, 1001. 
Massachusetts Bank v. Oliver, 1000. 
Massachusetts Iron Co. v. Hooper, 

Massachusetts Loan & Tr. Co. v. 

Twichell, 664a. 
Massachusetts Nat. Bank v. Snow, 65, 

189, 573, 693, 776, 7Slb, 838, 1409. 
Massey v. Building Assoc, 93. 

V. Turner, 713a. 
Massie v. Belford, 46. 

V. BjTd, 1215. 
Massman v. Holscher, 68a, 855. 
Mast V. Mathews, 59. 
Master v. MiUer, 148, 1373a, 1374, 

1376, 1379, 1410a. 
Masters v. Iberson, 803. 

V. Miller, 23. 
Masterson v. Mansfield, 357, 358a. 
Mater v. Am. Nat. Bank of Denver, 

156, 1407. 
Mather v. Gordon Bros., 1734c. 

V. Maidstone, 1353, 1371. 
Mathews & Co. v. Dubuque Mattress 

Co., 418. 
Mathewson v. Stafford Bank, 1000. 

V. Sprague, 716. 

Mathias v. Kirsch, 175, 790. 
Mathiesen v. McMahon, 210. 
Mathis V. Barnes, 265. 
Matlock V. Livingston, 199a. 

V. Scheuerman, 187, 775, 776, 789, 
814a, 1590, 1593. 
Matson v. Alley, 803, 812. 
Matteson v. Ellsworth, 1413. 

V. Morris, 741. 

V. Moulton, 500. 
Matthews v. Allen, 1147, 1148. 

V. Bloxsome, 95a, 143a, 714a. 

V. Dare, 1275. 

V. Haydon, 588. 

V. Houghton, 55. 

V. Matthews, 1485. 

V. Poythress, 775, 814, 1462. 

V. Redwine, 102. 
Matthews, Finley & Co. v. Rutherford, 

Matthey v. Gaily, 1096. 
Mattison v. Marks, 43. 
Mattox V. Leach, 63. 
Mauldin v. Branch Bank, 366, 753, 812. 
Maule V. Crawford, 104. 
Maull V. Vaughn, 186. 
Mauney v. Coit, 1276. 
Maupin t'. Compton, 736. 
Mauran v. Bullus, 1755. 

V. Lamb, 1652. 

V. Lambert, 1230. 
Maurin v. Perat, 657. 
Maury v. Coleman, 860. 

V. Rogers, 448, 1726. 
Maux Ferry Gravel R. Co. v. Branegan, 

424, 1088a. 
Mawson v. Blane, 236. 
Maxey v. Knight, 1458. 
Max Simons & Co. v. McDowell, 769a, 

Maxwell v. Agnew, 1703. 

V. Morehart, 852. 

V. Vansant, 728. 

V. Wright, 1353. 
Maxwell & Putnam v. Southern Pac. 

R. Co., 1741. 
May V. Babcock, 1729. 

V. BoLsseau, 191, 256, 1109, 1128, 
1130, 1140, 1141, 1184. 

V. Campbell, 751. 

V. Chapman, 7956. 

V. Coffin, 1144, 1170, 1172. 

V. Cooper, 616. 

V. Dyer, 689a, 729, 741. 

V. First Nat. Bank, 724a. 

V. Hewitt, 303. 

V. Jones, 180, 644, 934, 952, 955, 

V. Kelly, 295, 362, 485, 521. 

V. Martin, 831a. 


References are to paragraphs marked § 

May t>. May, 241. 
V. Miller, 92. 
V. Newman, 1342. 
V. Quimby, 832. 
V. Reed, 1326. 
Mayberry v. Boynton, 1788. 

V. Morris, 800a, 832. 
Maydole v. Peterson, 174, 1321. 
Mayer v. Ojlumbia Sav. Bank, 795a. 
V. Eschback, 440. 
V. Heidlbach, 832. 
V. Isaac, 1755, 1770, 1772. 
V. Jadis, 1196. 
V. Mode, 831c. 
V. Old, 93, 536, 812, 813. 
V. Roche, 865, 868. 
V. Thomas, 571. 
Mayers v. McRimmon, 664a, 665, 688a, 

769o, 1219. 
Mayes v. McElroy, 177. 

V. Robinson, 775. 
Mayfield Grocer Co. v. Andrew Price & 

Co., 724a. 
Mayhew t^. Boyd, 1311. 

V. Crickett, 1311, 1340, 1789. 
V. Prince, 311. 
Maykin v. Kirby, 747. 
Maynard v. Davis, 831a. 
V. Fellows, 361. 
V. Johnson, 125. 
V. Maynard, 179. 
V. National Bank, 831a. 
Mayo V. Chcnoweth, 102. 
Mayor v. Hammond, 128. 

V. Johnson, 1475, 1479, 1695. 

V. Lord, 1537, 1542. 

V. Potomac Ins. Co., 1493, 1507, 

V. Ray, 420, 427. 
Mayor of Alexandria v. Patten, 1250, 

Mayor of New York v. Sands, 795a. 
Mayor of Wetumpka v. Wetumpka 

Wharf Co., 420, 815. 
Mays V. Callison, 670. 
Maze V. Miller, 1267. 
Mazuzan v. Mead, 766. 
McAtee v. Shade, 174. 
McArthnr v. Bloom, 245. 

V. Magee, 832a. 
McArthur Co. v. National Bank, 1734&. 
McAuley v. Gordon, 363, 1395. 
McAyealt;. GuUett, 1198. 
McBain v. Seligman, 795a. 
McBean v. Morrison, 400. 
McBlair v. Gibbes, 200. 
McBride v. American Ry. & Lighting 
Co., 16a. 
V. Farmers Bank, 339, 344. 
V. Illinois Nat. Bank, 598, 644. 

McBride t;. Potter-Lovell Co., 1340. 
McBrown v. Corp. of Lebanon, 101. 
McCabe v. Raney, 859. 
McCain v. Lowthcr, 1587. 
McCall V. Clayton, 404. 

V. Taylor, 92. 
McCalley v. Wilburn, 262. 
McCallum v. Driggs, 164, 713a, 717, 

McCammon v. Shanyz, 775. 
McCampbell v. Fountain Head R. Co., 

V. McCampbell, 241. 
McCandler v. Canning Co., 403. 
McCann i'. City of Albany, 1799. 

V. Lewis, 812. 

V. Preston, 87. 

V. Randall, 436, 744. 
McCarty v. Roots, 703, 831a. 
McCarty & Co. i'. Louisville Banking 

Co., 774, 775, 812. 
McCathern v. Bell, 721. 
McCauley v. Murdock, 769a. 
McCaughey v. Smith, 1388. 
McCaughy v. Berg, 678a. 
McCausland v. Ralston, 194. 
McCherd i-. Ford, 56. 
McClae v. Southerland, 94, 361. 
McClain v. Lowther, 1587. 
McClane v. Fitch 581, 583, 1043. 
McClaraghan v. Hines, 80. 
McClellan v. City Nat. Bank, 196. 

V. Detroit File Works, 386. 

V. Reynolds, 418. 

V. Robe, 305. 
McClelland v. Bartlett, 1227. 

V. Bishop, 594. 

V. Coffin, 55. 

V. Detroit File Works, 366. 

V. Norfolk & S. R. Co., 1496a, 1501. 
McClenathan v. Davis, 46. 
McCless V. Meekins, 1522. 
McClintock v. Cummins, 815. 

V. State Bank, 1421. 
McCluny v. Jackson, 1260. 
McClure v. Bennett, 306, 307. 405. 

V. Corydon Deposit Bank, 292. 

V. Little, 1403, 1404. 

V. Livermore, 400. 

V. McClure, 183. 

V. Township of Oxford, 1498, 1503, 
1538, 1544, 1550. 
McCollum V. Broughton, 1338a. 
McComb V. Kittridge, 1317, 1317a. 

V. Thompson, 713a. 
McComber v. Dunham, 1458a. 
McConkey v. Petterson, 207. 
McConnell v. Hector, 216. 

V. Hodsan, 775. 

V. McConnell, 24. 



References are to paragraphs marked § 

McConnell v. Muiry, 24a. 

V. Thomas, 1189, 1189a. 
McCord, In re, 704. 

V. Callaway & Co., 365. 

V. Ford, 1245. 

V. McCord, 24. 

V. National Bank, 1603. 
McCorkle v. Miller, 787. 
McCormack v. Trotter, 56. 
McCormal V. Redden, 185, 186. 
McCormick v. Altneare & Co., 1260. 

V. Harvesting Co. & Taylor, 319. 

V. Hickey, 128. 

V. Holmes, 854. 

V. Kampman, 769a. 

V. Kampmann, 814. 

V. Littler, 212. 

V. Molburg, 849a. 

V. Peters, 1245. 

V. Sawyer, 745. 

V. Shea, 1290. 

V. Stockton, 402, 1220. 

V. Swem, 62a, 812. 

t;. Williams, 781. 
McCormick Harvesting Mach. Co. v. 
Blair, 1373, 1385, 1411, 1412. 

V. Williams, 203. 
McCormick Machine Co. v. Gustafson, 

V. Jacobson, 164. 
McCosker v. Banks, 802, 815. 
McCoy V. Gilmore, 86a. 

V. Gouvion, 850. 

V. Green, 62. 

V. Lockwood, 142, 1395. 

V. Washington County, 1491, 1726. 
McCracken v. German Fire Ins. Co., 

V. San Francisco, 318. 
McCrady v. Jones, 181, 766, 1204, 

McCramer v. Thompson, 854, 1387. 
McCrary v. Caskey, 76. 
McCraven v. Crislen, 1403. 
McCrea v. Murphy, 193. 
McCrillis v. How, 225. 
McCroskey v. Ladd, 203. 
McCrummen v. Campbell, 32. 
McCuUis V. Barlett, 212. 
McCulloch V. Hoffman, 174. 
McCullough V. Cook, 643. 

V. Kervin, 1259. 

V. Moss, 386a, 387, 389, 393. 

V. State of Maryland, 126. 

V. Virginia, 448. 

V. Wainwright, 98. 
McCune v. Belt, 703, 980. 
McCurbing v. Tumbull, 1378. 
McCurdy v. Bowes, 50a, 730. 

V. Prugh, 800a. 

McCurdy v. Sheawassee County, 420. 
McCutchen v. Rice, 499, 504, 508. 
McDade v. Mead, 1424. 
McDaniel v. Cluninski, 833. 

V. Mallary Bros. Machinery Co., 

V. Pressler, 1187. 
McDavid v. McLean, 1338. 
McDoal V. Yeomans, 1769a. 
McDonald v. Aufdengarden, 177, 205, 
812, 815. 

V. Bailey, 899, 1099. 

V. Beer, 206. 

V. Huestis, 156. 

V. Jackson, 1470. 

V. Lee, 633. 

V. Luckenback, 389, 714. 

V. Mackenzie, 1437. 

V. McGruder, 703, 703a, 1204. 

V. McPherson, 1730. 

V. Muscatine Nat. Bank, 850. 

V. Randall, 802, 814. 

V. Rankin, 267. 

V. Whitfield, 703a, 1340. 
McDonnell v. Burnes, 607. 

V. Keller, 56. 
McDonough v. Nowlin, 1342. 
McDougal V. Rutherford, 867. 
McDougall V. Walling, 1324. 
McDowall V. Chambers, 74. 

V. Cook, 531. 
McDowell V. Bank of Willmington, 

V. Bank, 1708(f. 

V. Goldsmith, 728. 
McDuffie V. Dame, 1436. 
McEldcry v. Chapman, 262. 
McElroy v. Albany Sav. Bank, 16126. 
McElvain v. Mudd, 127, 172, 173. 
McElwee v. Collins, 764. 

V. Met. Lumber Co., 1221. 
McElwee Mfg. Co. v. Trowbridge, 725a, 

McEowen v. Scott, 509. 
McEvers v. Mason, 503, 550, 552. 
McEwan v. Smith, 17126. 
McEwer v. Kirtland, 996. 
McEwen v. Gordon, 1390. 
McFall V. Murray, 85, 1578. 
McFarland v. Pico, 590a, 963,983, 1212. 

V. Sikes, 63, 68a. 
McFarlane v. York, 156. 
McGahan & Co. v. Lockett, 21, 747. 
McGahey v. Commonwealth, 448. 
McGammon v. Shantz, 775. 
McGarry et al. v. Nicklin, 868, 922. 
McGavock v. Omaha Nat. Bank, 1321. 

V. Piuyear, 200. 
McGee v. Connor, 713a. 

V. Prouty, 1336. 


References are to paragraphs marked § 

McGee V. Riddlesgarber, 748a. 
McGeorge v. Chapman, 1115. 
McGhee v. National Bank, 1785. 
McGill V. McGill, 3266. 

V. Young, 815. 
McGlynn v. Scott, 183. 
McGoonw. Shirk, 1247. 
McGough V. Jamison, 1707a. 
McGovern v. Hosenback, 125. 
McGowan v. Collins, 74. 
McGowen v. West, 39. 
McGrade v. German Sav. Inst., 1637. 
McGrath v. Barnes, 80, 182. 

V. Clark, 142, 1385, 1406, 1408. 
McGraw v. Gentry, 112. 

V. Union Trust Co., 74, 1437. 
McGregor v. Bishop, 201. 
McGregoryt;. McGregory, 1185. 
McGruder v. Bank of Washington, 571, 

635, 654a, 1145, 1146. 
McGue V. Rommel, 203. 
McGuffin V. Coyle & Guss, 99, 196. 
McGuiness v. Kyle, 156. 
McGuire v. Allen, 720a, 721. 
V. Bidwell, 1260. 
V. Bosworth, 7136. 
V. Gadsby, 1260, 1266. 
McGuirk v. Cummings, 90a. 
McHay v. Peterson, 812. 
McHenry v. Duffield, 307. 
V. Hazard, 727. 
V. Ridgely, 687. 
McHugh V. County of Schuylkill, 1352a, 

Mclntire v. Oliver, 374. 
V. Preston, 384, 385. 
V. Yates, 184, 834. 
Mcintosh V. Haydon, 672, 1379. 
V. Lytle, 102, 1571, 1571a. 
V. Ransom, 1233. 
V. Tyler, 1623. 
Mcintosh & Co. V. Farmers' & Traders' 

Nat. Bank, 1743. 
Mclntyre v. Insurance Co., 643. 
V. Kennedy, 1260. 
V. Moore, 1338. 
McKany v. McNabb, 1317, 13176. 
McKay v. H. A. Hall & Co., 1437. 
McKean v. Cook, 1227. 
McKee v. Vernon Co., 1492a. 

V. Whitworth, 1339. 
McKeen v. Bank, 1654a. 
McKenna v. Kirkwood, 834. 
McKenney v. Bowie, 356. 
McKenny, v. Peters, 262. 

V. Waller, 1311. 
McKenzie v. British Linen Co., 1353. 
V. Durant, 1209. 
V. Hunt, 1437. 
V. Scott, 314. 

McKenzie v. Wimberley, 710. 
McKeown v. Lacey, 241. 
McKesson v. Stanberry, 815. 
McKewer v. Kirtland, 611, 996. 
McKim V. King, 1505. 
McKinnell v. Robinson, 200. 
McKinney v. Bradbury, 362. 
V, Crawford, 611, 996. 
V. Hopwood, 249. 
V. Whipple, 646. 
McKinnon v. Boardman, 1752. 
McKinster v. Bank of Utica, 327. 
McKinzie v. British Linen Co., 1352a. 
McKleroy v. Southern Bank of Ky., 

McKnight v. Parsons, 776, 7796, 7956, 

McLachlan v. Evans, 1687. 
McLain v. Lohr, 725a. 
McLanahan v. Chamberlain, 185. 
McLane v. Sacramento, etc., R. Co., 

McLaren v. Cochrain, 815. 
V. Hall, 1260. 

V. Watson's Exrs., 1774, 1775, 
McLaughlin v. Ardmore Loan, etc., Co., 
V. Braddy, 32, 32a, 694, 769a. 
McLean v. Bryer, 783. 
V. Fleming, 1733. 
V. Hertzog, 1482. 
V. Nichlen, 88. 
V. Ryan, 1056. 
McLemore v. Powell, 1316. 
McLeod V. Despain, 271, 1230. 
V. Evans, 336, 340e. 
V. Snyder, 1186a. 
McLin V. Harvey, 1340. 
McLughan v. Bovard, 1262, 1267. 
McMahon v. German-American Nat. 
Bank, 1227, 1230. 
V. Newton Sav. Bank, 246. 
McMann v. Walker, 808. 
McMarchey v. Robinson, 926. 
McMasters v. Reed, 382. 
McMean v. Little, 95, 1085. 
McMeekin v. Southern Ry. Co., 1731. 
McMenomy v. Ferrers, 16a, 21. 
McMichau's Estate, In re, 1227- 
McMicken v. Beauchamp, 1418. 

V. Safford, 164. 
McMillan v. Hefferlin, 1376. 

V. McNeil, 875. 
McMillen v. County Judge, 1535, 1560. 
McMinn v. Richmond, 225. 
McMonigal v. Brown, 605, 1106. 
McMoran v. Lange, 7076. 

V. Murphy, 1266. 
McMuUen v. Rafferty, 709, 1215. 

Table of cases 


References are to paragraphs marked § 

McMurchey v. Robinson, 624. 
McMurray v. Sisters of Charity of St. 

Elizabeth, 513. 
McMurtie v. Jones, 1019. 
McMurtrey v. Sparks, 1373. 
McNair v. Gilbert, 1472. 

V. Moore, 571, 639, 1310. 
McNairy v. Bell, 643. 
McNamara v. Coudon, 205. 

V. Gargett, 166, 204, 789. 

V. Jose, 761, 777. 

V. McDonald, 26. 
McNamee v. Carpenter, 1183a, 1191. 
McNaught V. McClaughry, 85. 
McNeal v. Wyatt, 995a. 
McNealy v. Gregory, 172, 173. 
McNeel v. Smith, 202. 
McNeelly v. Ford, 317. 
McNeil V. McCamley, 1260. 

V. Shober, etc., Co., 415. 

V. Tenth Nat, Bank, 1708, 1708f . 
McNeilage v. Holloway, 254, 1184. 
McNeill V. Bay Springs Bank, 177, 203. 
McNeilly v. Patchin, 1340. 
McNight V. Kinsley, 832. 
McNinch v. Northwest Thresher Co., 

McNisch V. Ramsey, 49. 
McNulta V. West Chicago Park Com- 
mission, 1612a. 
McPeters v. Blankinship, 427. 

V. English, 81a. 

V. Philips, 1454. 
McPhee & IMcGinnity v. Fowler, 23, 

McPherson v. Bondreau, 824, 827. 

V. Weston, 718, 722, 1192. 
McPhilips V. Jones, 713e. 
McRae v. Rhodes, 1074. 
McShan v. Watlington, 1181a. 
McSherry v. Brooks, 724a. 
McSparran v. Neely, 85, 214, 775. 
McTighe v. McKee, 204. 
McVaughters v. Elder, 261. 
McVean v. Scoot, 1387, 1388. 
McVeigh v. Allen, 767o, 1032. 

V. Bank of the Old Dominion, 90a, 
218, 1048, 1060, 1062, 1070, 

V. Howard, 88. 
McVey v. Cantrell, 248. 
McWhirt v. McKee, 721. 
Meacham v. Pinson, 62. 
Meacher v. Fort, 538, 1354, 1356. 
Meachum v. Dow, 196. 
Mead v. Caswell, 1590. 
V. Engs, 331, 992. 
V. Keller, 382. 

t;. Merchants Bank, 134, 390, 391, 

Mead v. Munson, 850. 

V. National Bank of Pawling, 

V. Small, 1242. 

V. Young, 692, 1345. 
Meade v. Sandidge, 789, 789a, 1410a. 
Meader v. Scott, 1428. 
Meadow v. Bird, 188. 
Meadowcraft et al. v. Walsh, 698d, 

1191, 1192b. 
Means v. Anderson, 847, 1318. 

V. Kendall, 1480. 

V. Subers, 203. 

V. Swormtedt, 408. 
Mears v. Graham, 86, 403, 405. 

V. Waples, 1731, 1734c. 
Mechanics' Assn. v. Furguson, 824. 
Mechanics' & Farmers' Sav. Bank v. 

Katterjohn, 27, 9956, 1147a, 1164. 
Mechanics & T. Nat. Bank v. Crow, 

Mechanics' Bank v. Bank of Columbia, 
299, 398, 419. 

V. Chardavoyne, 832. 

V. Earp, 312, 344, 345. 

V. Griswold, 1132, 1170. 

V. Huston, 1289a. 

V. Livingston, 3696, 490. 

V. Merchants Bank, 598, 658, 

V. N. Y. & N. H. Co., 273, 1503, 

V. Schaumburg, 282. 

V. Straiton, 99, 1571. 

V. Townsend, 862. 

V. Valley Packing Co., 698, 698c, 

I'. Yager, 4976. 
Mechanics' Banking Assoc, v. Place, 

Mechanics', etc.. Bank v. Barnett, 832a. 

V. Crow, 183a, 814. 

V. Farmers, etc.. Bank, 1731. 

V. Schuyler, 83, 630. 
Mechanics' Nat. Bank v. National Fer- 
tilizer Co., 971. 
Meckel v. State Sav. Inst., 1421. 
Mecorney v. Stanley, 715. 
Medbury v. Watrous, 229. 
Meggadow v. Holt, 1170. 
Medlin v. Buford, 834a. 

V. Platte, etc., 1373a. 
Medlock v. Wood, 999a. 
Medway Cotton Mfg. Co. v. Adams, 

Mee V. Carlson, 775, 795a, 815. 
Meech v. Smith, 1763. 
Meeker v Jackson, 1478, 1480. 

V. Shanks, 793, 1190. 
Meeks v, Meeks, 203. 



References are to paragraphs marked § 

Meggadow v. Holt, 1170. 
Meggett V. Baum, 1335a. 
Megginson v. Harper, 99. 
Meggotf. Mills, 1252, 
Megrath v. Gilmore, 1623. 
Megowan v. Peterson, 271. 
Mehlberg v. Fisher, 1260, 1276. 
Mehlinger v. Harriman, 189. 
Meigs V. Bromley, 189. 
Meir & Co. v. Bank, 360, 361. 
Meise v. Doscher, 142, 713e, 1385, 1408. 
Meiswinkler v. Jung, 1317. 
Meitzlor v. Todd, 374, 1215. 
Melanotte v. Teasdale, 40. 
Meldrum v. Henderson, 20, 1612a. 
Mclendy v. Keen, 834. 
Melick V. First Nat. Bank, 1309. 
Melledge v. Boston Iron Co., 399. 
Mellen v. Moore, 403, 404. 
Mellersh v. Rippen, 978, 983. 
Mellish V. Rawdon, 465, 473, 612. 

V. Simeon, 484, 1448. 
Melton V. Brown, 713a. 

V. Gibson, 99. 

V. Pensacola Bank & Trust Co., 
130, 145, 769a, 812, 831o, 
II8I0, 1378. 
Meltzer v. Doll, 183. 
Melun V. Fitzjames, 886. 
Melvill V. Glendinning, 1331. 

V. Hayden, 1770. 
Memphis Bethel v. Bank, 832a, 1496, 

Menagh v. Chandler, 1332. 
Menard v. Scudder, 1770a. 
Menaska v. Hazard, 1523a, 1537. 
Mendenhall v. Davis, 717. 

V. Stewart, 1799. 

V. Ulrich, 815. 
Mendez v. Carreroon, 576, 1229, 1230a. 
Mendizabel v. Machado, 509. 
Menifee v. Clark, 1319. 
Menkins v. Heringhi, 252, 254. 
Mentross v. Clark, 790. 
Mentsw. Booth, 1221. 
Menzel v. Primm, 174. 
Menzie v. Smith, 573. 
Mercantile Bank v. Boggs, 831a. 

V. Busby, 9956. 

V. Cox, 363. 

V. McCarthy, 1017. 
Mercantile Guaranty Co. v. Hilton, 814. 
Mercer v. Lancaster, 1022. 
Mercer County v. Hacket, 10, 389, 1495, 
1496, 1500, 1501, 1530, 1537, 

y. Hubbard, 1493, 1496, 1511, 
1512a, 1545, 1550. 

V. Life & Tnast Co., 63. 

V. Pittsburg, etc., R. Co., 1535. 

Merchant Loan & Trust Co. v. Welter, 

782, 815. 
Merchants, etc., Co. v. Cornforth, 1741. 
Merchants' & Farmers' Bank v, Cleland, 

V. Johnston, 357. 

t'. Wexson, 831c. 
Merchants' & Farmers' Cotton Oil Co. 

V. Lufkin Nat. Bank, 795c. 
Merchants' & Mfrs. Bank v. Cumings, 

Merchants' & Manufacturers' Nat. 

Bank v. Ohio Val. F. Co., 753a, 777, 

Merchants & Mech. Sav. Bank v. Fraxe, 

Merchants & Planters' Bank v. Meyer, 

Merchants' & P. Nat. Bank v. Trustees, 

812, 815, 1468a. 
Merchants' Bank v. Bank of Columbia, 

1;. Bank of Commonwealth, 1622a. 

V. Birch, 1001. 

V. Brown, 1400. 

V. Busby, 714. 

V. Bussell, 1322, 1324. 

V. Central Bank, 301, 392. 

V. Eagle Bank, 1622a. 

V. Easley, 1084. 

V. Elderkin, 656. 

V. Evans, 643. 

V. Goodman, 334. 

V. Griswold, 278, 551. 

V. Marine Bank, 395. 

V. McClelland, 184, 775, 780. 

V. McKay, 1311. 

V. McNutt, 1005. 

V. Spicer, 74, 688a, 1567, 1586, 
1587, 1590, 1652. 

V. Stafford Bank, 329, 347. 

V. State Bank, 388, 389, 390, 391, 
392, 412, 1537, 1572, 1601a, 
1602, 1603, 1610. 

V. Union R. Co., 1747a. 
Merchants' Bank of Canada v. Brown, 

867, 879, 1399. 
Merchants' Exch. Bank v. Fuldner, 

V. Luckow, 68a, 815. 
Merchants Ins. Co. v. Hauck, 1319. 
Merchants' Nat. Bank v. Abernathy, 

V. Bales, 1750a. 

V. Baltimore C. & R. Steamboat 
Co., 1731, 1740a. 

V. Brisch, 164, 787. 

V. Citizens Gas Light Co., 388. 

V. Citizens' St. Bank, 1769. 

V. Clark, 284, 802. 



References are to paragraphs marked 

Merchants' Nat. Bank v. Comstock, 
177, 793a. 

V. Eyre, 1312. 

V. Goodman, 654a. 

V. Greggs, 664. 

V. Hanson, 775, 795a. 

V. Lovitt, 802. 

V. McAnulty, 1327, 1340. 

V. Murphy, 1325. 

t;. Nat. Bank of the Common- 
wealth, 1226. 

V. New Brunswick Sav. Inst., 1652. 

V. Norris, 789. 

V. Prudential Ins. Co., 1225. 

V. Ritzinger, 1567, 1572. 

V. Robinson & Co., 326&. 

V. Samuel, 1623. 

V. School District, 1612a. 

V. Sevier, 62. 

V. Stafford Nat. Bank, 327. 

V. Tracy, 205, 802. 

V. Wadsworth, 815. 
Merchants' Nat. Bank of Baltimore v. 

Roxbury Distilling Co., 62. 
Merchants Nat. Bank of Santa Monica 

V. Bentel, 88, 635, 644, 970, 972, 

Merchants Nat. Bank of Savannah v. 

Demers, 833. 
Merchants' Sav. Bank v. Moore, 688c. 
Merchants State Bank v. State Bank of 

Philips, 1069, 1277a. 
Merchants Trust Co. v. Bentel, 1203. 
Meriam v. Rundlett, 800a. 
Merick v. Boury, 1260. 
Meridian Nat. Bank of Indianapolis v. 

First Nat. Bank of Shelby ville, 

136, 138. 1345, 1607a, 1608, 1652. 
Merill v. Anderson, 1643. 
Merillat v. Plummer, 193. 
Meritt v. Bagwell, 849a. 
Merle v. Wells, 1772. 
Merrell v. Duncan, 781a. 

V. Springer, 742. 
Merriam v. Moody, 1527. 

V. Rockwood, 854. 

V. Solcott, 284, 731a, 7316, 740a, 
Merrick v. Bourv, 1268, 1410a. 

V. Butler, 724a. 
Merrill v. Carr, 196. 

V. Duncan, 775. 

V. First Nat. Bank, 793a. 

V. Fleming, 196a. 

V. Hole, 7956, 796. 

V. Monticello, 422. 

V. Muzzy, 62. 

V. Peaslee, 196. 

V. Sypert, 81c, 418. 

V. Thome, 81c. 

Merrill v. Timbrell, 1490. 
Merriman v. Barker, 1330. 

V. Miles, Ext., 1312. 
Merriman & Co. v. Knox, 807. 
Merritt v. Bagwell, 849a. 

V. Benton, 933. 

V. Dewey, 1403, 1421. 

V. Duncan, 509, 812. 

V. Gate City Nat. Bank, 1587, 1787. 

V. Jackson, 612. 

V. Todd, 609, 1702a. 

V. Woodbury, 972. 
Mersick v. Alderman, 726, 832a, 1181a. 
Mersman v. Werges, 1373, 1389. 
Mertens v. Winnington, 526, 1254. 
Merz V. Kaiser, 576. 
Meslin's Exrs. v. Hiltt, 1290. 
Messenger v. Southey, 978, 983. 

V. Vaughan, 67a, 1760. 
Metcalf V. Douglas, 1590. 

V. Williams, 305. 
Metcalfe v. Richardson, 972, 985, 1158, 

Metropolis v. Jones, 395. 
Metropolitan Bank v. Muller et al., 
710, 1335a. 

V. Taylor, 249. 
Metropolitan Nat, Bank v. Jones, 
1601a, 1604. 

V. Mer. Nat. Bank, 1661. 

V. Loyd, 336, 1621. 
Metropolitan Sav. Bank v. Murphy, 

Metzerott v. Ward, 1272. 
Metzger v. Carr, 1260. 

i;. Hubbard, 1769. 

V. Waddell, 597. 
Meuer v. Phoenix Nat. Bank, 1604, 

Meyer v. Brown, 1550. 

V. Chas. Rosenheim, 1225. 

V. City of Muscatine, 1500, 1523, 
1532, 1537, 1540, 1547. 

V. Doherty, 161. 

V. Foster, 663, 672. 769a, 1038, 
1181a, 1191. 

V. Graeber, 156. 

V. Hasworth, 240. 

V. Hibscher, 639, 640, 709, 1180. 

V. Huneke, 1410a, 1411. 

V. Koehring, 181. 

V. Lovdal, 775, 819. 

V. Peck, 1729, 1729a. 

V. Richards, 734a. 

V. Wegener, 319. 

V. Weil, 73. 
Meyer & Co. v. Decroix, 517. 
Meyers v. Byington, 1289. 

V. Huggins, 373. 

V. Standart, 515. 



References are to paragraphs marked § 

Meyerstein v. Barber, 1731a, 1737. 
Meyron v. Abel, 370, 373. 
Merz V. Kaiser, 576, 1017, 1196. 
Michalitschke Bros. v. Wells, Fargo & 

Co., 1741. 
Michigan Bank v. Eldred, 104, 367, 

368, 369, 843. 
Michigan Ins. Co. v. Leavenworth, 83, 

142, 267, 604. 
Michigan Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Custer, 

V. Klatt, 1181a. 
Michigan State Bank v. Leavenworth, 
562, 831, 1329. 

V. Pecks, 501. 
Mickles v. Colvin, 187. 
Micklewaitt v. Noell, 854. 
Middaugh v. ElHot, 1373. 

V. Wilson, 156. 
Middleborough Nat. Bank v. Cole, 241. 
Middleport v. Etna Life Ins. Co., 1538. 
Middlesex v. Thomas, 1260, 1276. 
Middleton v. Alleghany County, 1527a. 

V. Griffith, 694, 1093, 1181a, 1196, 
1198, 1200. 

V. McCarter, 703a. 

V. Pollock, 1429. 
Middleton Bank v. Morris, 1586, 1592. 
Midland Nat. Bank v. Brightwell, 
Assignee, 326, 233, 334, 335. 

V. Missouri Pacific R. Co., 1730, 
1731, 1745a. 

V. Roll, mSd. 

V. Schoen, 366, 367, 1300a. 
Midland Steel Co. v. Citizens' Nat. 

Bank, 769a, 879. 
Midwood Park Co. v. Baker, 819. 
Miers v. Brown, 972, 985, 1175. 
Milan v. Tenn. Central Railroad, 1532. 
Milbank-Scampton Milling Co. v. 

Packwood, 3706. 
Milberg v. Stoner, 1393. 
Milburn v. Guyther, 1421. 
Milenoy v. Keen, 748a. 
Miles V. Hall, 1019. 

V. Williams, 681. 
Milius V. Kauffmann, 187, 831a. 
Milks V. Rich, 739a, 1763. 
Millard v. Barton, 779, 850. 
Millaudon v. Arnons, 1305. 
Millbank v. De Riesthal, 389, 394. 
Miller v. Austen, 1703. 

V. Biddel, 48. 

V. Board of Education, 319. 

V. Boyer, 815. 

V. Boykin, 824, 831a. 

V. Browning, 1326. 

V. Burgess, 1219. 

V. Butler, 497. 

V. Cavanaugh, 1458. 

Miller v. Central University of Ky., 203. 
V. Clendenin, 74. 
V. Consohdated Bank, 369. 
V. Delamater, 252, 681. 
V. Dill, 1219. 
V. Finley, 214, 797, 1389. 
V. Fletcher, 856. 
V. Gaston. 1782. 
V. Gilleland, 1377. 
V. Gunderson, 80. 
V. Hackley, 9, 960, 961, 1021, 1054, 

1055, 1056, 1110, 1163. 
V. Hannibal & St. J. R. Co., 1729. 
V. Helm, 265. 
V. House, 294. 
V. Hughes, 368. 
V. Jeffrees, 24b. 
V. Johnson, 1227. 
V. Knight, 1328. 
V. Kyle, 62a. 
V. Larmon, 125. 

V. Lamed, 726, 790, 793a, 834. 
V. Lewiston, Nat. Bank, 94, 1786. 
V. Lumsden, 1260, 1268, 1275. 
V. McCan, 1317. 
V. Miller, 24. 
V. Morrow, 125. 
V. Neihaus, 504. 
V. Ord, 748. 
V. Palmer, 117. 
V. Poague, 50. 
V. Pollock, 827. 
V. Race, 771, 1503, 1672, 1674, 

V. Ray, 1520. 
V. Reed, 1390. 
V. Reigne, 261. 
V. Reynolds, 307, 392a. 
V. Ridgely, 714, 714o. 
V. Roach, 400, 408. 
V. Rutland, etc., R. Co., 1491a. 
V. Slade, 1411. 
V. State, 1654. 
V. Stem, 1319. 
V. Swanton, 1290. 
V. The Bank, 831a. 
V. The Chicago & Alton R. Co., 

V. The Farmers' & Mechanics' 

Bank of Carroll County, 831a. 
v. Thompson, 129, 481, 482. 
V. Tiffany, 922, 923, 924. 
V. TreviUian, 1250. 
V. Weeks, 130. 

V. Western College of Toledo, 43. 
V. White, 81. 
V. Williamson, 265. 
V. Wilson, 1221. 
Millhiser Mfg. Co. v. Galleygo Mills 
Co., 1713a. 



References are to paragraphs marked § 

Milliagan v. Pollard, 209. 
Milliken v. Brown, 1290. 
V. Chalmers, 7316. 
V. Chapman, 737. 
Milling & Export Co. v. Eastern Mill- 
ing & Export Co., 1643. 
Million V. Ohmsberg, 196. 
Mills V. Bank of U. S., 615, 622, 623, 
629, 661, 662, 979, 979o, 983, 
V. Barber, 177, 814. 
V. Barney, 1702, 1703. 
V. Beard, 1098. 
V. Charleston, 1556, 1563. 
V. Davis, 1215. 
V. Fowlkes, 1252. 
V. Gleason, 1522, 1529, 1530. 
V. Hyde, 1227. 
V. Jefferson, 1514. 
V. Kuykendalc, 50. 
V. McMuUen, 1646. 
t;. Mills, 188. 
V. Porter, 781a. 
Millspaugh v. Putnam, 24a 
V. Rense, 1106. 
V. Stewart, 800a. 

V. Town of Jefiferson, 1500, 1513, 
Milmo Nat. Bank v. Cobbs, 161, 190, 
455, 503, 504, 532, 534, 597, 7796, 
812, 1203, 1601a. 
Miln V. Prest, 559. 
Milne v. Graham, 903. 
Milner v. Gray, 96. 
Milnes v. Dawson, 181. 

V. Duncan, 1226. 
Milton V. De Yamper, 713e. 
Milwaukee Mason & Builder Assn. v. 

Niezerowski, 196. 
Milwaukee Trust Co. v. Van Valken- 

burgh, 393, 573. 
Mims V. Macon, etc., R. Co., 1281. 

V. West, 800a. 
Minard v. Mead, 253. 
IVIindlin i'. Appelbaum, 780, 832. 
Minell v. Read, 800. 
Miner v. Bewick, 1192a. 
V. Hamilton, 81a. 
V. Ho^-t, 1437. 
V. Vedder, 427. 
Mineral Point R. Co. v. Barron, 884, 

Miners' & Merchants' Bank v. Rogers, 

1317, 1322. 
Minet v. Gibson, 136. 
Minmg Co. v. Bank, 728, 775. 
Minis V. Brook & Co., 371. 
Minneapolis Brewing Co. v. Grathen, 

Minneapolis Threshing Mach. Co. v. 
Gib^th, 795a. 

Minor v. Mechanics Bank of Alexander, 
304, 687. 
V. Minor, 1432. 
Minot V. Curtis, 399. 

V. Russ, 1604. 
Minter v. Chicago, etc., Ry. Co., 1741. 
Minter Bros. v. South Kansas Ry. Co., 

Minturn v. Fisher, 1103, 1106, 1574, 

1576, 1634a. 
Miranda v. City Bank, 1106. 
Miser v. Trooinger, 999a. 

V. Trovinger, 1074. 
Misher v. Carpenter, 672. 
Missouri, etc., Trust Co. v. Krumseig, 

Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co., v. Sealy, 

Missouri-Lincoln Trust Co. v. Long, 43. 
Missouri Loan Bank v. Garner, 1289. 
Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Atkinson, 68, 
V. Councilman, 22. 
V. McLiney, 1731. 
Mitchell V. Baldwin, 819. 

V. Baring, 508, 523, 651, 652, 935. 
V. Burlington, 1523, 1525. 
V. Byrne, 63a. 
V. Catchings, 783. 
V. Cockburn, 200. 
V. Cross, 1039, 1041, 1045. 
V. Culver, 1376. 
«;. Degrand, 454, 589, 619, 626. 
I'. Eaton, 1707. 
t;. Friedley, 1429. 
V. Hewitt, 56. 
V. Mitchell, 125. 
V. Ostrom, 370. 
V. Reed, 795a, 1375, 1378. 
V. Rome R. Co., 39, 386. 
V. St. Mary, 573. 
V. Sellman, 1428. 
V. Tomlinson, 815, 849. 
V. Whaley, 369. 
V. Wheeler, 1327. 
Mitchinson v. Hewson, 258. 
Mitford V. Walcot, 491, 529, 547, 724. 
Mittnacht v. Bache, 1612a. 
Mix V. Madison Ins. Co., 924. 

V. Ely, 1282. 
Mize V. Nat. Bank, 24a, 829a, 832. 
Mizell Live Stock Co. v. Banks, 81c. 
Moakley v. Riggs, 1769. 
Mobile Bank v. Brown, 56. 
Mobile Sav. Bank v. McDonnell, 89, 

Mobley v. Clark, 424, 1082. 

V. Ryan, 728. 
Moddiev. Breiland, 1421. 
Moers v. City of Reading, 1523. 



References are to paragraphs marked § 

Moffat V. Edwards, 41. 
V. McKissick, 361. 
V. Van Milligan, 354. 
Moffatt V. Blake, 157. 
Moffett V. Bickle, 674. 
Moffit V. Roche, 356. 
Mogadara v. Holt, 1170. 
Moge V. Herndon, 1416. 
Moggridge v. Jones, 203. 
Mohawk Bank v. Brodcrick, 1578, 
1594, 1607, 1651. 
V. Corey, 790, 793. 
Mohawk Nat. Bank v. Van Slyck, 364. 
Mohawk Nat. Bank of Schenectady v. 

Schenectady, UOSd. 
Mohlman v. McKane, 184, 1031. 
Mohr V. Rickgauer, 182. 
Moies V. Bird, 85, 707, 1760. 1765. 

V. Knapp, 92. 
Moise V. Chapman, 1689. 
Molbin V. Southard, 685. 
Moline, Ex parte, 1036, 1235. 
Molloy V. Delves, 4976. 
MoLson's Bank v. Howard, 496. 
Molton V. Camroux, 210, 214. 
Monett State Bank v. Eubanks, 824, 
Money v. Ricketts, 782. 
Monongahela Nat. Bank v. Harmony 

Land Co., 394. 
Monroe v. Bonanno, 1226. 

V. Cooper, 369, 816, 819. 

V. Fohl, 1252. 

V. Hoff, 737, 1265. 

V. Martin, 156. 

V. Whitehouse, 1431. 
Monroe Mercantile Co. v. Arnold, 387. 
Monseaux v. Urquhart, 222. 
Monson v. Drakely, 94, 1387. 
Montague v. Perkins, 143, 490, 517. 
Montana Coal & Coke Co. v. Cincin- 
nati Coal & Coke Co., 879. 
Montclair v. Ramsdell, 803, 804. 
Montelius v. Charles, 472, 605. 
Montford v. American Guano Co., 205. 
Montgomery v. Budge, 918. 

V. Elliott, 647. 

V. Forbes, 399a. 

V. Grenier, 183. 

V. Hunt, 156. 

V. Kellogg, 1785, 1785&, 1786. 

V. Page, 156, 175. 

V. Sayre, 1310, 1311. 

V. Schenck, 713e. 

V. Tutt, 643. 

V. Whitbeck, 234. 
Montgomery County v. Auchley, 67a. 
Montgomery County Bank v. Albany 
City Bank, 341, 344, 345, 349a, 

t;. Marsh, 1022, 1025. 

Montgomery Nat. Bank v. Armstrong, 

Montgomery R. Co. v. Trebles, 997, 

1238, 1242. 
Montjoy v. Delta Bank, 196. 
Montpelier Bank v. Dixon, 1311. 
Montrose Sav. Bank v. Claussen, 775, 

Montross v. Boyd, 1300. 
Monument Nat . Bank v. Globe Works, 

Moodalay v. East India Co., 1527a. 
Moodie v. Morrall, 590, 640, 1031, 1180. 
Moody V. Findley, 703. 

V. Mack, 1073, 1580. 

V. Nat. Bank, mSd. 

V. Rowell, 1219. 

V. Threlkeld, 99, 490. 
Moon V. Foster, 217, 218. 
Moon Bros. Carriage Co. v. Devenish, 

Moore v. Baird, 757, 767. 

V. Barthrop, 1623. 

V. Candell, 181. 

V. Clopton, 867. 

V. Coffield, 1123. 

V. Cross, 713e. 

V. Davis, 16a. 

V. Denslow, 683. 

V. Durnan, 1478, 1480. 

V. Fall, 1482, 1484, 1485. 

V. First Nat. Bank of Iowa City, 

V. Fu-st Nat. Bank of Ouray, 1242. 

V. Gould, 161. 

V. Greenhow, 448. 

V. Hershey, 210, 213. 

V. Holloman, 1209. 

V. Holt, 1755. 

V. Hubbard, 185, 664a. 

V. Hutchinson, 1385, 1411. 

V. Lackman, 370. 

V. Louisiana Nat. Bank, 1734b. 

V. Macon Sav. Bank, 1317a, 1397. 

V. McClure, 305. 

V. Metropolitan Nat. Bank, 1708^. 

V. Moore, 24a, 122, 125, 1215, 

V. Pollock, 335. 

V. Quu-k, 122, 125. 

V. Reading, 1317a. 

V. Robinson, 859, 1750a. 

V. Ryder, 758, 791, 794, 831c. 

V. Staser, 62, 62a. 

V. Thompson, 205. 

V. Vogel, 202. 

V. Waitt, 658. 

V. Wallace, 1770a. 

V. Ward, 794. 

V. Warren, 1262, 



References are to paragraphs marked § 

Moore v. Whithy, 497. 

V. Williams, 363. 
Moore & Tabb v. Johnson County Sav- 
ings Bank, 663. 
Moorehead v. Gilmer, 369. 
Moorman v. Bank of Alabama, 980. 

V. Voss, 1339. 

V. Wood, 717. 
Moose V. Marks, 1251, 1252. 
Moran v. Abbey, 1223. 
Moran Bros. Co. v. Wattson, 359. 
Mordecai v. Dawkins, 200. 
More V. Manning, 698d. 
Morehead v. Citizens' Deposit Bank, 
1317, 1325, 1335a, 1338. 

V. Parkersburg Nat. Bank, 144, 
Morehead Bkg. Co. v. Morehead, 262. 
Morehouse & Wells Co. v. Schwabcr, 

Moreland's Adm'r v. Citizens' Sav. 

Bank, 89, 939, 1002. 
Moreland's Assignee v. Citizens' Sav. 

Bank, 325, 793. 
Morell V. Codding, 406. 
Morey v. Laird, 1965. 

V. Wakefield, 608, 783. 
Morford v. DavLs, 674. 

V. Farmers' Bank, 386. 
Morgan v. Bank, 1663. 

V. Bank of Louisville, 1060, 1070, 

V. Bank of N. A., 1708rf. 

V. Bean, 724a. 

V. Cedar Rapids Nat. Bank, 769a. 

V. Creditors, 1266a. 

V. Davison, 603. 

V. Edwards, 54, 54a, 62. 

V. Jones, 1458a. 

V. Reintzel, 1478. 

V. Richardson, 203. 

V. Thompson, 189, 704, 1342. 

V. United States, 441, 604, 605, 
606, 724a, 782, 1500, 1503, 

V. Van Ingen, 960, 961. 

V. Wickliffe, 1312. 
Morgner v. Bigelow, 724. 
Morlcy i'. Boothby, 1764. 

V. Culverwell, 7816, 1233. 
Mornyer v. Cooper, 803. 
Morrell v. Cowan, 1770. 
Morrill v. Brown, 1672, 1673a. 
Morris v. Bacon, 8345. 

V. Beaumont Nat. Bank, 1378. 

V. Bethell, 1353. 

V. Birmingham Nat. Bank, 1085. 

V. Brown, 203. 
V. Butler, 63, 316. 
V. Cain, 151, 154. 

Morris v. Case, 815. 

V. Cleasley, 314. 

V. Cude, 1196. 

V. Edwards, 56. 

V. Eufaula Nat. Bank, 1587, 1590. 

V. Faurot, 722. 

V. First Nat. Bank, 356. 

V. Georgia Loan Co., 802. 

V. Harvey, 1266, 1266a, 1267, 

V. Husson, 1023. 

V. Lee, 35. 

V. McMorris, 125. 

V. Morton, 63, 792. 

V. Norton, 195a. 

V. Poillon, 1197. 

V. Preston, 693. 

V. Richards, 627. 

V. Summerii, 330. 

V. White, 195a, 834. 
Morris Canal, etc., Co. v. Fisher, 1500, 

V. Lewis, 1496, 1517. 
Morris County v. Maddox, 357. 
Morris County Brick Co. v. Austin, 

Morris-Miller Co. v. Von Pressentin, 

68a, 1587. 
Morrison v. Bailey, 1568, 1569, 1574, 
1576, 1587, 1590, 1600, 1638. 

V. Buchanan, 463, 492. 

V. Farmers', etc.. Bank, 6. 

V. Garth, 1411. 

t'. Hart, 188, 775. 

V. Hartman, 1311. 

V. Lamson, 21. 

V. Lovell, 219, 733. 

V. McCartny, 1587. 

V. Ombaum, 62a. 

V. Perry, 370. 

V. Smith, 1401. 

V. Taylor, 291. 

V. Thistle, 249. 
Morrison Lumber Co. v. Lookout Mt. 

Co., 707. 
Morris Run Coal Co. v. Barclay Coal 

Co., 200. 
Morriss v. Harvey, 1260, 1266, 1267, 

V. Walker, 807c. 
Morrow v. Whitesides, 258. 
Morse v. Chamberlain, 1029. 

V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 1734a. 

V. Clayton, 264, 265. 

V. Green, 299. 

V. Huntington, 1322. 

V. Massachusetts Nat. Bank, 

V. Wheeler, 235. 

V. Woodworth, 1259. 


TABLE Of cases 
References are to paragraphs marked § 

Mortee v. Edwards, 46, 49. 
Mortgage Trust Co. v. Elliott, 1470. 
Mortimer v. Cliambers, 163, 1219. 
Morton v. Burn, 827. 
V. Cammack, 1005. 
V. Naylor, 16o, 21, 451. 
V. N. O. & Selma R. Co., 796, 1506. 
V. Preston, 706. 
V. Steward, 225. 
V. Wescott, 1024. 
Moseley v. Hanford, 80. 
Mosely, v. Graydon, 266. 

V. Selma Nat. Bank, 70. 
Moses V. Clark, 695. 
V. Comstock, 853. 
V. Ela, 1131. 

V. Franklin Bank, 1567, 1600, 1636. 
V. Lawrence County Bank, 1767a. 
V. McTerlar, 1369. 
j;. Trice, 205, 1228, 1266, 1478, 
Moshannon Land Co. v. Sloam, 395. 
Mosher v. Allen, 1197. 

V. Indian School Dist., 1542, 1563. 
Moskowitz V. Deutsch, 1409. 
Moss V. Adams, 1252. 
V. Averill, 382. 
V. Livingston, 413. 
V. Maddux, 1373. 
V. Oakley, 382, 428. 
V. Stokeley, 19. 
Mossop V. Eadon, 1475, 1479, 1484. 
Mott V. Havana Nat. Bank, 51a. 

V. Hicks, 302, 382, 383, 408, 700. 
V. Rowland, 867. 
Mottram v. Heyer, 1731a. 
Moule V. Brown, 332, 1592, 1598. 
Moulton V. Boston, 1319. 
Moultrie County v. Fairfield, 1524, 
V. Savings Bank, 1537. 
Mount V. Dehaven, 186. 
Mountford v. Harper, 1648. 
Mount Holly Turnpike Co. v. Ferree, 

Mount Mansfield Hotel Co. v. Bailey, 

1458, 1514, 1516. 
Mount Morris v. Gorham, 280, 296. 
Mountstephen v. Brooke, 98. 
Mount Sterling Nat. Bank i;. Green, 

1572, 1617. 
Mount Sterling Turnpike Co. v. Looney, 

Mount Vernon Bank v. Holden, 1054. 

V. Porter, 377. 
Mowat V. Brown, 188. 
Mowbray, Ex parte, 260. 
Mowrey v. Mast, 1478. 
Mox V. State Bank, 901. 
Moxon V. Pulling, 689o. 

Moye V. Cogdell, 1245. 
Moyer's Appeal, 1107. 
Moynahan v. Hanford, 713a. 
Moyses v. Bell, 203, 7956, 805. 
V. Schendorf, 1316, 1319. 
Mozingo V. Ross, 374. 
Mudd V. Reeves, 1675. 
Mudge V. Bullock, 251, 252. 
Mudgott V. Day, 335. 
Mueller, Matter of, 1611a. 
Mueller i'. Buch, 177. 
Muhling V. Sattler, 130. 
Muilman v. D'Eguino, 466, 467, 469, 

471, 1037, 1046. 
Muir V. Crawford, 1322. 
V. Demaree, 1388. 
V. Rand, 1687. 
Muirhead v. Kirkpatrick, 1966, 1311. 
Muldon V. Whitlock, 1267, 1268, 1300. 
Muldrow V. Bald well, 1396. 

V. Caldwell, 130, 663. 
Mulhall Bros. v. Berg, 1227. 
Mull V. Van Trees, 186. 
Mullen V. Hawkins, 203. 
V. Jones, 1754. 
V. Morris, 898, 901, 920, 945. 
MuUer v. National Bank of Cortland, 
t;. Pondir, 67. 
V. Swanton, 183. 
Mullick V. Radakissen, 465, 466, 470, 

473, 474, 475. 
Mullin V. Leamy, 196a. 
Mullins V. Brown, 1623. 
Mulnix V. Spratlin, 1306. 
Mumford v. Hawkins, 393. 
V. Tolmon, 61, 81. 
V. Weaver, 812. 
Munch V. Valley Nat. Bank, 3346. 
Muncy Borough School Dist. v. Com- 
monwealth, 605, 612, 1596. 
Mundy v. Whitmore, 834. 
Monger v. Albany City Nat. Bank, 
V. Shannon, 16a, 50. 
Munn V. Baldwin, 1021. 

V. Burch, 1571, 1637, 1638. 

V. Commission Co., 383, 751, 760, 

V. McDonald, 824. 
Munnerlyn v. Augusta Sav. Bank, 

Munro v. King, 156. 
Munroe v. Bordier, 175, 178. 

V. Weir, 1481. 
Munson v. Bank, 265. 
Munyon v. French, 1294. 
Murchie v. MacFarlane, 1373a. 

V. Peck Bros., 80. 
Murchison v. Nies, 177, 725. 



References are to paragraphs marked § 

Murchison Nat. Bank v. Dunn Oil 

Mills Co., 184, 698o, 780. 
Murdoch v. Lee, 1377. 
Murdock v. Arndt, 719. 

V. Clark, 1251. 
Mure, Ex 'parte, 1311. 
Murphey v. Illinois Trust & Sav. Bank, 

Murphy v. Gumaer, 165, 284, 831a. 

V. Keyes, 174. 

V. Phelps, 1221. 

V. Weems, 200. 
Murray v. Aull, 195a. 

V. Ayer, 370a. ^ 

V. Beckwith, 775. 

V. BurHng, 1483. 

V. East India Co., 290. 

V. Glasse, 241. 

V. Jones, 748, 834. 

V. Judah, 672, 1081, 1335a, 1586, 
1587, 1596, 1620, 1652. 

V. Lardener, 724a, 775, 1469, 1500, 

V. Lylboum, 800a 

V. Pate, 1687. 

V. Reed, 724a. 

V. Snow, 1289. 

V. Todd, 747. 
Murray Show Case & Fixture Co. r. 

SuUivan, 177, 183. 
Murrell v. Jones, 170. 
Murrill v. Handy, 86a. 
Murry v. East India Co., 264. 

V. W. W. Kimball, 68. 

V. Lardner, 776, 814. 

V. Peterson, 1373a. 
Murto V. Lemon, 728, 1227. 
Muscatine v. Sterneman, 122, 125. 
Muse V. Dantzler, 32, 859. 
Musgrave v. Drake, 369. 
Musselman v. Logansport, 1563. 

V. Oakes, 103. 
Mussey v. Dempsey, 161. 

V. Eagle Bank, 1610, 1610a. 

V. Rayner, 1755, 17856. 
Musson V. Lake, 654, 896, 898, 953, 970, 

Muth V. Goddard, 1752. 

V. St. Louis Trust Co., 1603, 1608, 
1610, 1610a. 
Mutual Benefit Life Ins. Co. v. Hunt- 
ington, 834. 
Mutual Building & Loan Assn. v. Perry, 

1337, 1338. 
Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Hunt, 210. 
Mutual Life Ins. Co. of New York v. 

Reid, 1754. 
Mutual Loan Assn. v. Brandt, 187. 

V Lesser 1409. 
Mutual Mill ins. Co. v. Gordon, 834. 

Mutual Nat. Bank v. Coco, 1326. 

V. Rotge, 1604. 
Muzzy V. Knight, 156. 
Myatt V. Bell, 373, 1260, 1301. 
Myer v. Hart, 62. 

V. Jacobs, 733a. 
Myers v. Beeman, 800a. 

V. City of Jeffersonville, 1537. 

V. Dimond Joe Line, 1738. 

V. Farmers St. Bank, 1339. 

V. Friend, 441, 663, 741. 

V. Kessler, 70, 808. 

V. Nell, 1401. 

V. State Bank, 1311, 1326. 

V. Walker Bros. & Co., 283. 

V. Willis, 1329. 

V. York, etc., R. Co., 747. 
Mynard v. SjTacuse, etc., R. Co., 1740a. 
MjTick i;. Hasey, l782. 
Myrick Bros. Co. v. Jackson, 573. 


Naef V. Potter, 726. 
Nagal V. Lutz, 1183o. 
Nagel V. Mignot, 1470, 1478. 
Nagle V. Homer, 508. 

V. Schnadt, 728, 1219. 
Naglee v. Lyman, 823. 
Nailor v. Bowie, 654, 969. 
Nail V. Smith, 1407. 
Nance v. Lary, 845. 

V. Winship Machine Co., 1788. 
Napier v. Elam, 831a. 

V. Schneider, 1449. 
Narragansett Bank v. Atlantic Silk Co., 

Naser t;.*First Nat. Bank, 334, 341. 
Nash V. Brown, 181. 

V. Fugate, 856. 

V. Gibbon, 54a. 

V. Harrington, 611, 1152, 1157, 
1170, 1172. 

V. Hodgson, 1252. 

t;. Nash, 257. 

V. Towne, 305. 
Nashua Sav. Bank v. Abbott, 1294. 

V. Sayles, 679, 713a, 868. 
Nashville v. Ray, 1530. 
Nashville Bank v. Bennett, 1005. 
Nashville Lumber Co. v. Fourth Nat. 

Bank, 673. 
Nashville Trust Co. v. Smythe, 834. 
Nassau Bank v. Campbell, 1311. 
Nassau Trust Co. v. Matherson, 795c. 
Nassoiy v. Tomlinson, 1289, 1623. 
Nathan v. Giles, 1730a. 

V. Sloan, 713a. 
National Bank v. American Exch. 

Bank, 627, 1625. 



References are to paragraphs marked 

National Bank V.Atlanta R. Co., 1731. 

V. Bank, 335. 

V. Berrott, 356, 357, 365. 

V. Brewster, 241. 

V. Brooks, 724. 

V. Brush, 720a. 

V. Cade, 1022. 

V. City of lola, 1520. 

V. Co. of Yankton, 1486. 

V. Dorset Marble Co., 707a, 713a. 

V. Fassett, 322. 

V. Fitze, 802. 

V. Flanagan, 790. 

V. Forbes, 1343. 

V. Graham, 286a. 

V. Gray, 59. 

V. H. R. Snyder Mfg. Co., 386. 

V. Herold, 427, 438. 

V. Howe, 802. 

V. Insurance Co., 3346, 336, 1612a. 

V. Johnson, 3266. 

V. Jones, 1603. 

t;. Jose, 1260, 1322. 

V. Kirby, 1506. 

V. Kirk, 196a. 

V. Law, 365. 

V. Leonard, 689a. 

V. Lewis, 205, 1110. 

V. Logan, 1592. 

V. McNair, 777. 

V. Matthews, 769a. 

V. Merchants' Nat. Bank, 1727, 
1734a, 17346, 1734c. 

V. Miller, 815. 

V. Navassa Phosphate Co., 394. 

V. Nolting, 1654a, 1658, 1659. 

V. Norton, 3696, 370, 373. 

V. Second Nat. Bank, 1636. 

V. Silke, 104. 

V. Smith, 3266. 

V. Smoot, 869. 

V. Tappan, 1370. 

V. Texas, 724. 

V. Thomas, 386, 388, 391. 

V. Wells, 386. 

V. White, 790. 

V. Wood, 62. 
National Bank of America v. National 

Bank of lUinois, 1651, 1652. 
National Bank of Barre v. Foley, 

National Bank of Battle Creek v. Dean, 

National Bank of Bellefonte v. Mc- 

Manigle, 287. 
National Bank of Bristol v. Baltimore 

& O. R. Co., 1727, 1730, 1731. 
National Bank of Chester v. Atlanta 
R. Co., 17336. 

V. Gunhouse, 449. 

National Bank of Cleburne v. Carper, 

National Bank of Commerce v. Gallard, 

V. Kenney, 729, 891. 

V. Mechanics' Am. Nat. Bank, 
1566, 1657. 

V. Nat. M. B. Assn., 349a, 1166, 
1361, 1369, 1654a. 

V. Pick, 789. 

V. Puget Sound Biscuit Co., 388. 

V. Rockfellow, 201, 1260. 
Nat. Bank of Commerce in St. Louis v. 
Morris, 769a, 831a. 

V. Sancho Packing Co., 386. 
Nat. Bank of Fort Edward v. Washing- 
ton County Nat. Bank, 1698a, 

Nat. Bank of Kennett Square v. Shaw, 

Nat. Bank of Michigan v. Green, 767, 

Nat. Bank of Newbury v. Sayer, 183. 
Nat. Bank of New Jersey v. Berrall, 

Nat. Bank of Newport v. H. P. Snyder 

Mfg. Co., 386, 790, 815. 
Nat. Bank of North America v. Bangs, 
1361, 1367, 1369, 1657. 

V. Kirby, 787. 
Nat. Bank of Phocnixville v. Buck- 
waiter, 1203. 
Nat. Bank of Pittsburg v. Wheeler, 674. 
Nat. Bank of Rolla v. First Nat. Bank 
of Salem, 698d, 1657, 1752. 

V. Rominc, 769a, 814, 815. 
Nat. Bank of Rondout v. Byrnes, 812. 
Nat. Bank of St. Joseph v. Dakin, 824, 

855, 856. 
Nat. Bank of the Republic v. City of St. 
Joseph, 1550. 

V. Delano, 241, 713a. 

V. Young, 382, 386, 775. 
Nat. Bank of Webb City v. J. H. Ever- 
ett & Son, 1734c. 
Nat. Building Assn. v. Aehworth, 923. 
National Butchers' & D. Bank v. Hub- 
bell, MOd. 
National Citizens' Bank v. Bowen, 81a. 
National Citizens' Bank of Mankato v. 

Bowen, 189. 
National City Bank v. Wescott, 349a. 
National Commercial Bank v. Miller, 

1603, 1636. 
National Eagle Bank v. Hunt, 1770a. 
National Exch. Bank v. Hartford R. Co., 
1489, 1500, 1509, 1510, 1513. 

V. Lester, 1409. 

V. Lubrano, 714, 1203. 

V. McElfresh Clay Mfg. Co., 1781. 



References are to paragraphs marked § 

National Exch. Bank v. United States, 
V. Venneman, 850. 
V. White, 369, 843. 
V. Wilder, 1714. 
Nat. Exch. Bank of Baltimore v. Rock 

Granite Co., 899. 
Nat. Exch. Bank of Lexington v. Wil- 

gus, 363. 
Nat. Fence Mach. Co. v. Highleyman, 

Nat. Fire Ins. Co. v. Eastern B. & L. 

Asso., 28. 
Nat. German-American Bank v. Lang, 

National Gold Bank v. McDonald, 

1622, 1623. 
National Hudson River Bank v. K. & 

H. R. Co., 609. 
Nat. Improvement & Construction Co. 

V. Maiken 322. 
National Ins. Co. v. Bowman, 93a. 

V. Goble, 1221, 1260, 1262. 
National Lead Co. v. Montpelier Hard- 
ware Co., 1310, 1339. 
Nat. Life Ins. Co. v. Bd. of Education, 

National Life Stock Commission Co. v. 

Thero, 1316. 
National Lumberman's Bank v. Miller, 

National Mechanics Bank v. National 

Bank, 284. 
National Newark Bkg. Co, v. Second 

Nat. Bank, 472. 
National Park Bank v. Eldred, 1369. 

V. German Security Co., 386. 

V. Koehler, 1266. 

V. Levy Bros., 1623, 1644. 

V. Ninth Nat. Bank, 1361, 1661, 

V. Porter, 386a, 769a. 

V. Remsen, 795a. 

V. Saitta, 163, 174a, 465, 497&. 

V. Seaboard Bank, 349a. 

V. Security Co., 365. 

V. Toplitz, 1312. 
National Pemberton Bank v. Longee, 

National Revere Bank v. Morse, 

V. National Bank of the Republic, 
National Safe Dep. Sav. & Tr. Co. v. 

Grey, 1708J?. 
National Salt Co. v. Ingraham, 43, 

775, 1703. 
National Sav. Bank t;. Cable, 51. 
National Security Bank v. McDonald, 


National Shoe & Leather Bank v. Herz, 

National Spraker Bank v. Treadwell 

Co., 394. 
National State Bank v. Rising, 1401. 
National State Cap. Bank v. Noyes, 

National Union Bank v. Shearer, 1713a, 

Nave V. First Nat. Bank, 101. 

V. Richardson, 588, 953. 
Naylor v. Moody, 1317. 
Nazro v. Fuller, 137, 1378, 1379. 
Neal V. Coburn, 533, 1655, 1656. 

V. Erving, 299. 

V. Gray, 1181a. 

V. Hanson, 12276. 

V. Irving, 296. 

V. Rouse, 1250. 

V. Wilson, llZd. 

V. Wood, 1097. 

V. Wyatt, 992. 
Neale v. Turton, 354. 
Neate v. Harding, 1372&. 
Nebeker v. Cutsinger, 850, 852. 
Nebraska v. State Bank of Wahoo, 326c. 
Nebraska Moline Plow Co. v. Fueh- 

ring, 1643. 
Nebraska Mut. Bond Ass'n v. Klee, 177. 
Nebraska Nat. Bank v. Furguson, 386. 

V. Logan, 1587. 
Needhams v. Page, 713d. 
Needles v. Needles, 254. 

V. Shafer, 1395. 
Neeley v. Bee, 1341. 

V. Black, 700. 
Neff V. Homer, 1385. 
Neff's Appeal, 1311. 
Negley v. Lindsay, 1352a. 
NeiiTer v. Bank of Knoxville, 393. 
Neil V. Case. 1421a. 

Neill V. Produce Co., 1731, 1734a, 1743. 
Neiman v. Bacon Tr. Co., 1615. 
Nelson v. Brown, 1312, 1317, 1324. 

V. Cowing, 70, 145. 

V. Dubois, 1765, 1767. 

e;. First Nat. Bank, 561, 567, 
1468a, 1606a, 1799. 

V. Flagg, 1312. 

V. Fotterall, 457, 586, 588, 602, 
945, 955, 959, 964. 

V. Grondahl, 635, 969. 

V. Kastle, 966, 1588. 

V Larmer, 812. 

V. Manning, 49. 

V. Nordlinger, 1741. 

V. Stollenwerck, 680. 

V. Webster, 1343. 

V. Wellington, 833, 1185. 

V. Whittall, 112. 



References are to paragraphs marked 

Nelson v. Woodruff, 1729, 1742. 
Neosho Milling Co. v. Farmers Co-op. 

Warehouse Stock Co., 714. 
Neptune, Admr., v. Paxton, Recr., 418. 
Nesmith v. Drum, 1644. 
Nesson v. Millen, 189. 
Nethercutt v. Hopkins, 722. 
Neuhoff V. O'Reilly, 1708^. 
Neumann v. Schroeder, 504. 
Nevada Bank v. Luce, 496, 551a. 
Nevins v. Bank of Lansingburgh, 1016, 

V. DeGrand, 1415. 
Nevius V. Moore, 598, 654, 970, 1149. 
New V. Swain, 1280. 

V. Walker, 197, 198, 663. 
New Albany Woolen Mills v. Myers, 

728, 784. 
New Bank of Eau Claire v. Kleiner, 51o. 
Newberry v. Armstrong, 1764. 

V. Detroit, etc.. Iron Co., 1708e. 

V. Trowbridge, 1149, 1163, 1165. 
New Birdsall Co. v. Stordalen, 780. 
New Blue Springs Milling Co. v. De- 
Witt, 697, 1203. 
Newbury v. Rand, 1190. 
Newburyport v. Fidelity Mut. Life 

Ins. Co., 386. 
Newcomb v. Boston, 17346. 

V. Raynor, 1303, 1307. 

V. Wood, 334. 
Newell V. Gregg, 787. 

V. Mayberry, 1410a. 

V. Salmons, 1431. 

V. Williams, 719. 
New England Bank v. Lewis, 1212. 
New England Loan & Trust Co. v. Rob- 
inson, 573. 
New England Mortgage Co. v. Gray, 

New England Mortgage Security Co. 

V. Casebier, 834, 835. 
New England Nat. Bank of Kansas 

City, Mo., V. Dick, 1221. 
New England Trust Co. v. New York 

Belting & Packing Co., 1340. 
New Farmers' Bank's Tr. v. Young, 

Newgass v. New Orleans, 10a. 
Newgrass v. Shulhof, 68a. 
Newhall v. Central Pac. R. Co., 1730, 

V. Clark, 517. 

V. Dunlap, 311, 411. 

V. Field, 1298. 

V. Wyatt, 366. 
New Hampshire Sav. Bank t;. Colcord, 

New Haven County Bank v. Michell, 
1052, 1056. 

New Haven Mfg. Co. v. New Haven 

Pulp, etc., 1181a, 1198. 
New Hope D. & V. Co. v. Perry, 646, 

New Jersey v. Wilson, 446. 
New London Credit Syndicate v. Neale, 

New Madrid Banking Co. v. Poplin, 

815, 849a, 851. 
Newman v. Curiel, 857. 

V. Frost, 187. 

V. Gozo, 1450. 

V. Kaufman, 1569, 15856. 

t;. Kerson, 894. 

V. King, 1376. 

V. Newman, 247. 

V. Tillman et al., 795a, 7956. 

V. Wilhams, 750, 762a, 767. 
New Market Savings Bank v. Gillet, 

V. Hansom, 187, 573. 
New Orleans v. Benjamin, 10a. 

V. Clark, 1562. 

V. Quinlan, 10a. 
New Orleans Bank v. Harper, 1152. 
New Orleans Canal v. Templeton, 

New Orleans, etc., v. Montgomery, 728, 

784, 834a. 
New Providence v. Halsey, 1544. 
Newsom v. Thornton, 1731, 1748. 
Newton v. Clarke, 728, 812, 1219. 

V. Jackson, 157. 

V. Kennerly, 1458a. 

V. Porter, 14686. 

V. Snyder, 24. 
Newton Wagon Co. v. Dyers, 51a, 

New York & N. H. R. Co. v. Schuyler, 

278, 390, 391, 1611, 1708g, 1733a. 
New York & Va. State Bank v. Gilson, 

New York Bank v. Gibson, 1636. 
New York, etc., Co. v. Meyer, 1086. 

V. Selma Sav. Bank, 998, 1086. 
New York, etc., R. Co. v. Hawks, 

V. National Steamship Co., 1729a. 

V. Schuyler, 390, 1733a. 
New York Fireman's Ins. Co. v. Ely, 

New York Iron Mine v. First Nat. 

Bank, 392a, 812. 
New York Life Ins. Co. v. Martindale, 
303, 1375, 1385. 

V. Smucker, 81d. 
New York Marbled Iron Works v. 

Smith, 831c. 
New York Metal Ceiling Co. v. Leon- 
ard, 164. 



References are to paragraphs marked § 

New York Millinery & Supply Co. 

V. Hamburg, etc., Gessellschaft, 

New York Nat. Bank v. Kennedy, 662. 
New York Produce Exch. Bank v. 

Twelfth Ward Band Bank, 672. 
New York Security & Trust Co. v. Lip- 
man, 1713a. 

V. Storm, 28, 708, 1757. 
New York v. Vanderhorst, 831c. 
Neyens v. Hossack, 53. 

V. Worthington, 795c. 
Niagara Bank v. Roosevelt, 1689. 
Niagara District Bank v. Fairman, etc., 

Tool Mfg. Co., 515, 1380, 1381. 
Niblack v. Champeny, 1312. 

V. Park Nat. Bank, 3346, 600, 

V. Sprague, 68a, 816. 
Nicely v. The Winnebago Nat. Bank 

of Rockford, 31, 35, 41, 53, 54a, 

62, 63. 
Nichol V. Bate, 142, 1266. 

V. Mayor of Nashville, 1523. 
Nicholas v. Cheairs, 1299. 
Nicholas Bank v. State Nat. Bank, 341. 
Nicholay v. Fritschle, 1192. 
Nicholls V. Diamond, 413. 

V. Lefevre, 1730a. 
Nichols V. Allen, 1764. 

V. Blackmore, 472, 474. 

V. Cross, 1187. 

V. Diamond, 489. 

V. Frothingham, 76. 

V. Goldsmith, 636, 656, 1057. 

V. Lumpkin, 195a. 

V. Nichols, 183. 

V. Norris, 1322, 1334. 

W.Pearson, 750, 759, 760, 762a, 

V. Pool, 644. 

V. Ruggles, 51. 

V. State, 1611a. 

V. State Bank, 283. 

V. Webb, 945, 967, 968, 1057. 
Nichols & Shepard Co. v. First Nat. 

Bank, 68. 
Nichol's Exr. v. Porter, 902. 
Nicholson v. Barnes, 1180. 

V. Combs, 1389. 

V. Gouthit, 1172. 

V. Paget, 1755, 1770. 

V. Patton, 775. 

V. Revill, 1290, 1294, 1295. 

V. Sedgwick, 1698a. 
Nickell V. Citizens Nat. Bank, 90a, 

995, 1312. 
Nickerson v. Rockwell, 1186a. 
NicoUs V. Rodgers, 884. 
Niemeyer v. Brooks, 1215. 

Nightingale v. Chafee, 1260. 

V. Meginnis, 1317. 

V. Withington, 179, 227, 682. 
Niler v. Kelly, 1708a. 
Niles V. United States Ozocerite Co., 

Nimick v. Martin, 617. 
Nimocks v. Woody, 16a, 19, 550. 
Nixon V. Beard, 1260, 1341. 

V. EngUsh, 1437. 

V. First State Bank, 81. 

V. Palmer, 291, 319. 
Noble V. Doughten, 1586. 

V. McClintock, 366. 

V. Walker, 753, 763, 766. 
Nobles V. Bates, 196. 
Noe V. Christie, 16a. 

V. Hodges, 81. 
Noel V. Murray, 1262, 1264. 
Noll V. Smith, 1407. 
Non-Magnetic Watch Co., Matter of, 

Nonotuck Silk Co. v. Flanders, 340e. 
Nordlinger v. Nelson, 1741. 
Norfolk Nat. Bank v. Griffin, 130. 

V. Nenow, 795a, 7956, 855, 955a. 

V. Schwenk, 759a. 
Norlin v. Becker, 156, 775, 812. 
Norman v. Cole, 188. 
Norris v. Aylette, 1273. 

V. Badger, 576, 1195, 1227. 

V. Crummey, 1321. 

V. Gumming, 1318. 

V. Despard, 713a, 1060, 1070, 1596, 

V. Langley, 808. 

«;. Merchants' Nat. Bank, 68a. 

V. Solomon, 73. 

V. Ward, 1149. 
Northam v. Latouche, 808. 
Northampton Bank v. Pepoon, 394, 

Northampton Nat. Bank v. Kidder, 

V. Smith, 1226. 
North Atchison Bank v. Garrettson, 

V. Gray, 68. 
North Ave. Sav. Bank v. Hayes, 1311. 
North Bank v. Abbott, 650, 658, 1048. 
North British Ins. Co. v. Loyd, 1309. 
North British & Mercantile Ins. Co. v. 

Cent. Vt. R. Co., 1739. 
North CaroUna Corp. Com. v. Mer- 
chants, 1625. 
Northeastern Coal Co. v. Tyrell, 403. 
Northern v. Hawkins, 995. 
Northern Bank v. Farmers' Nat. Bank, 

V. Porter Township, 1543a. 


References are to paragraphs marked § 

Northern Lib. Co. Market v. Kelley, 

Northern Nat. Bank v. Hooper, 10. 

V. Lewis, 1187. 
Northern Pac. R. Co. v. Hobnes, 183. 
North Penn. R. Co. v. Adams, 1513, 
1514, 1515. 

V. Commercial Bank, 17336. 
Northern State Bank v. Bellamy, 1752, 

1753, 1789. 
Northfield Nat. Bank v. Arnt, 7796. 
North River Bank v. Aymar, 280, 283, 

Northrop v. Sanborn, 86a, 1580. 

V. Chambers, 999a. 
North Star Boot & Shoe Co. v. Stebbins, 

3266, 392. 
Northumberland Bank v. McMichael, 

Northumberland County Bank v. Eger, 

Northup V. Cheney, 959, 979a. 
Northwall Co. v. Osgood, 248, 795a. 
Northwestern Coal Co. v. Bowman, 

466, 1022, 1100, 1568, 1572. 
Northwestern Life Ins. Co. v. Sturdi- 

vant, 1221, 1625. 
Northwestern Nat. Bank v. Kansas 

City Bank, 698d, 1359. 
Northwestern Sav. Bank v. Centreville 

Station, 1539. 
Norton v. Brownsville, 1524. 

V. Dyersburg, 1532. 

V. Eastman, 1789, 17856. 

V. Knapp, 497. 

V. Lewis, 616, 1040, 1048. 

V. Norton, 800a. 

V. Paragon Oil Can Co., 1268. 

V. Pickering, 1077. 

V. Rose, 5. 

V. Seymour, 361, 1613. 

V. Stroud State Bank, 182. 

V. Waite, 832. 
Norvell v. Hudgins, 789, 795. 
Norwich Bank v. Hyde, 86a. 
Norwich Town Co., In re, 1616. 
Norwood V. Bank of Commerce of 
Lincoln, 775. 

V. Leeves, 787. 
Noteboom v. Watkins, 831a. 
Note Holders v. Bank of Tennessee, 

1669, 1695. 
Nott V. Beard, 953. 

V. Thomson, 248. 
Nottingham v. Ackiss, 7956. 
Novelty Mfg. Co. v. Connell, 1260. 
Nowack V. Lehmann, 180. 
Nowland v. Martin, 1339. 
Noxon V. De Wolf, 728. 
Noyes v. Landon, 724o, 725, 824. 

Noyes v. Price, 1687. 

V. Smith, 163. 
Nugent V. Laduke, 265. 
Nunemaker v. Lanier, 1590. 
Nunez v. Dautel, 45. 
Nunnemacher v. Poss, 398. 
Nurre v. Chittenden, 710, 713d. 
Nuso Vaumer v. Becker, 369a. 
Nutt V. Morse, 24. 
Nutter V. Stover, 831a. 
Nutting V. Burked, 605. 
Nye V. Chace, 186. 
Nyhart v. Kubach, 199a. 

Oakdale Mfg. Co. v. Clarke, 800a, 

Oakes v. Merrifield, 204. 
Oakey v. Beauvais, 635. 

V. Wilcox, 1379. 
Oakland Cemetery Assn. v. Lakins, 

Oakley v. Carr, 995, 1039, 1044, 

V. Ooddeen, 799. 
Oaks V. Miller, 17856. 
Oaste V. Taylor, 6. 
Oates V. Nat. Bank, 10, 90a, 763a, 768, 

Obbard 'v. Betham, 203. 
Ober V. Gallagher, 834a. 

V. Goodridge, 670, 728, 1199. 
Ober & Sons Co. v. Drane, 1310. 
Oberle v. Schmidt, 812. 
O'Brannon Co. v. Curran, 1091, 1171. 
O'Brien v. Gilchrist, 1729. 

V. Patterson Brewing & Malting 
Co., 80. 

V. Smith, 1590. 
O'Callaghan v. Thomond, 883. 
Ocean Nat. Bank v. Carll, 1057. 

V. Faut, 833. 

V. Wniiams, 581, 587, 926, 934. 
Ocean Tow Boat Co. v. Ship Opheha, 

Ocoll Bank v. Hughes, 929. 
O'Connell v. McQueen, 1248. 
O'Conner v. Hurley, 1260. 
O'Connor v. Brandt, 1425. 

V. Jones, 855a, 1468a. 

V. Kleiman, 81a, 204, 814a. 

V. Klennan, 196. 

V. Mechanics' Bank, 1638. 

V. Morse, 1310, 1312, 1313. 

V. Slatter, 664a. 
Odam V. Beard, 719. 
O'Day V. Sanford, 354. 
Odbert v. Marquet, 205, 213. 
Odd Fellows v. First Nat. Bank, 299, 




References are to paragraphs marked § 

Oddie V. National City Bank, 1621, 
O'Dell V. Carpenter, 1296. 

V. Clyde, 139. 

V. Cormack, 362a. 

V. Gallup, 1418. 

V. Gray, la. 
Odiorne v. Sargent. 155. 

V. Woodman, 725, 746. 
Odon V. New England Mortgage Co., 

Oexner v. Loeher, 713a, 1338. 
Ofenstein v. Bryan, 1402, 1409, 1375. 
Offerd V. Davies, 1770a. 
Officer V. Marshall, 1316, 1317. 
Ogden V. Astor, 350. 

V. Conley, 1049. 

V. Dobbin, 656, 991, 992. 

V. Marchand, 322, 769a. 

V. Pattee, 1489. 

V. Saunders, 614, 616, 671, 672, 
Ogden Ry. Co. v. Wright, 271. 
Ogilby V. Wallace, 1185. 
Ogilvie V. Moss, 267. 
Oglander v. Baston, 257. 
Ogle V. Graham, 1384. 
Oglesby v. Steamboat Co., 1148. 
O'Hara v. Haas, 1343. 
Ohio V. Frank, 1458a, 1514. 
Ohio County, Ky., v. Baird, 422. 
Ohio Ins. Co. v. Edmundson, 866. 
Ohio Life & T. Co. v. Debolt, 1525. 
Ohio Nat. Bank v. Gill Bros., 1219. 

V. Hopkins, 196, 933. 
Ohm V. Young, 76. 

Oil Well Supply Co. v. Exch. Nat. 
Bank, 571. 

V. Wolfe, 1300. 
O'Keefe v. Dunn, 724a, 932. 
O'Keeflfe v. First Nat. Bank of Frank- 
fort, 812. 
Okey V. Sigler, 1312. 
Okie V. Spencer, 1328, 1329. 
Olcott V. Rathbone, 1195, 1266, 1266a, 

V. Supervisors, 1521, 1523. 

V. Tioga R. Co.. 383. 
Oldham v. Brown, 1338a. 
Old Nat. Bank v. Marcy, 814. 
Olendorf v. Swartz, 1110. 
Oleson V. Wilson, 604, 606. 
Oliphant v. Vannest, 699. 
Oliver v. Andry, 672. 

V. Bank of Tennessee, 1074, 1076. 

V. Miller, 789. 
Olmstead v. Winstead, 1680a. 
Olney v. Chadsey, 395. 
Olpherts v. Smith, 271a. 
Olson V. Day, 1227. 
Olvey V. Jackson, 833, 1260. 

Omaha Loan & Tr. Co. v. Hanson, 

Omaha Nat. Bank v. City of Omaha, 

V. Johnson, 1317. 

V. Walker, 1782. 
O'Meara v. McDermott, 63. 
Omohundro v. Crump, 56, 86. 

V. Omohundro, 88. 
Oneida Bank v. Ontario Bank, 14916. 
O'Neill V. Magner, 89, 1215. 

V. O'Neill, 1478. 
Onondaga County Bank v. Bates, 580, 
584, 936. 

V. De Puy, 357. 
Onondaga County Sav. Bank v. United 

States, 349a. 
Ontario v. Hill, 1503. 
Ontario Bank v. Petrie, 984. 

V. Worthington, 831c. 
Oppenheim v. Bank, 62, 777. 

V. First Nat. Bank of Butte, 1643, 

V. Simon Reigal Cigar Co., 386. 
Oppman v. Steinbrenner, 1215. 
Orchard v. School Dist., 1527a. 
Orcutt V. Rickenbrodt, 1259. 
Ordt>. Portal, 1193. 
Ordeman v. Lawson, 1764. 
Orear v. McDonald, 1076, 1082. 
Oregon v. Jennings, 1537. 
Organ Co. v. Boyle, 814. 
Oridge v. Sherborne, 599, 617, 621. 
Oriental Bank v. Blake, 1000, 1177, 

i;. Gallo, 672. 
Oriental Commercial Bank, Ex parte, 

Orleans v. Pratt, 1537, 1543. 
Ormsbee v. Howe, 7956. 
Ormsby v. Kendall, 306. 
Orner v. Sattley Mfg. Co., 54a, 1221, 

Orono Bank v. Wood, 963. 
O'Rourke v. O'Rourke, 69, 891a. 
Orr V. Lacey, 1217. 

V. Maginnis, 454, 926, 940, 942, 

V. Sparkman, 62a. 

V. South Amboy Terra Cotta Co., 
Orrick v. Colston, 144, 147, 666, 709, 
713a, 843. 

V. Durham, 8346. 
Ort V. Fowler, 139, 850. 
Ortmeier v. Ivory, 1230. 
Orvis V. Kimball, 231. 
Ory V. Wilson, 895. 
Osborn v. Bryce, 1437. 

V. Doherty, 185. 



References are to paragraphs marked § 

Osborn v. Hall, 1403. 

V. Hamilton, 1181a. 

V. Hawley, 61. 

V. Kistler, 34. 

V. Low, 1317. 

V. McClelland, 782, 784a, 1200. 

V. Moncure, 787a, 1209. 

V. Nicholson, 170, 172. 

V. Robbins, 1306a. 

V. Rogers, 1210. 

V. Wood, 370. 
Osborne v. Adams Co., 1522. 

V. Lawson, 1761, 1769, 1788. 
Osgood V. Artt, 690, 741. 

V. Pearson, 103. 
O'Shea v. Collier, 194. 
Osmond v. Fitzroy, 211. 
Osteopathy v. Turner, 868. 
Osterhoudt v. Southern Pacific Co., 

V. Shoemaker, 213. 
Ostrander v. Scott, 1289a. 

V. Snyder, 816. 
Oswego Bank v. Knower, 1106. 
Other V. Iveson, 1298. 
Otis V. Bonstorch, 1311. 

V. Cullum, 734a. 

V. Hussey, 1149. 

V. Stockton, 422. 
Otis Mfg. Co. V. EUems, 1739. 
Otisfield V. Mayberry, 1226, 1227, 1228. 
Otsego County Bank v. Warren, 955, 

Ott V. Anderson, 1316. 

V. Seward, 717. 
Ottawa V. Casey, 1532. 
Ottow. Bedden, 1118. 

V. Halff, 1272, 1413. 
Ouachita County v. Wolcott, 427. 
Ouachita Nat. Bank v. Weiss & Co., 

Oulds V. Harrison, 725, 1436. 
Oulton V. Savings Inst., 334. 
Outhouse V. Outhouse, 1468a. 
Outhwaite v. Luntley, 1376, 1377. 
Overend, In re, 1255. 
Overland Min. Co. v. McMaster, 90. 
Overman v. Hoboken City Bank, 492, 

Overseers of the Poor v. Bank of Vir- 
ginia, 326c, 336. 
Overton v. Bolton, 868, 1458a. 

V. Hardin, 750, 751, 753. 

V. Matthews, 62a, 143, 1376, 1401. 

V. Tyler, 1, 61. 
Owen V. Barrow, 1230. 

V. Branch Bank, 1725. 

V. Bray, 1319. 

V. Evans, 724a, 782, 8346. 
V. Hall, 1411. 

Owen V. Homan, 1322. 

V. Iglanor, 513, 514. 

V. La vine, 514. 

V. Moody, 883. 

V. Van Uster, 488, 489. 
Owen & Co. v. Storms & Co., 386, 

Owens V. Dickinson, 248. 

V. National Hatchet Co., 161. 

V. Snell, 573, 812. 
Owensboro Savings Bank & Trust Co.'s 

Receiver v. Haynes, 1326. 
Owensboro Wagon Co. v. D. A. Wilson 

& Co., 81a. 
Owenson v. Morse, 1272, 1672a, 1679a. 
Owings V. Arnott, 1376. 

V. Baker, 710, 713a. 

V. McKenzie, 1316. 

V. Speed, 388. 
Owsley & Co. v. Louisville Banking Co., 

775, 812. 
Oxford Bank v. Haynes, 1787, 1788. 

V. Lewis, 1328. 
Oxford Iron Co. v. Spradley, 200. 
Oxnard v. Varnum, 90, 1147. 
Oyler v. McMurray, 95. 
Oyster & Fish Co. v. Bank, 1566, 1601, 

Ozan Lumber Company v. Union Nat. 

Bank, 199a. 
Ozanne v. Haber, 196, 196a. 

Pace V. Gilbert School, 62, 1227. 

V. Robertson, 1342. 
Pacific Bank v. Mitchell, 1221, 1222. 
Pacific Guano Co. v. HoUeman, 1187. 
Pacific Imp. Co. v. City of Clarkdale, 

Pack V. Thomas, 81, 1586, 1587. 
Packard v. Dunfee, 262, 1238. 

V. Lyon, 637, 1115. 

V. Nye, 406. 

V. Richardson, 1764. 

V. Windholz, 672, 790. 
Packham v. Hendren, 1966. 
Packwood v. Gridley, 801. 
Paddock v. Missouri Pacific Ry. Co., 

Paddon v. Taylor, 831c. 
Padget V. O'Connor, 204. 
Padgett V. Lewis, 205. 
Paese v. Hirst, 1197. 
Pagal V. Nickel, 156. 
Pagan v. Wylie, 1409. 
Page V. Cook, 45a. 

V. Geiser Mfg. Co., 203. 

V. Gilbert, 982. 

V. Morrel, 143. 



References are to paragraphs marked § 

Page V. Newman, 112. 

V. Page, 898, 1478. 

V. Prentice, 1031. 

V. Warner, 1460. 

V. Webster, 649, 650, 1316. 
Page Woven Wire Fence Co. v. Pool, 

Paige V. Carter, 83. 

V. Stone, 294, 305. 
Pain V. Packard, 1339. 
Paine v. Cent. Vt. R. Co., 783. 

V. Levy, 1227. 

V. Noelke, 713e. 

V. Ringold, 81c. 
Pake V. Wilson, 556, 570. 
Palfrey v. Baker, 1274. 
Palmer v. Carpenter, 1478. 

V. Courtney, 672. 

V. Dodge, 370, 373. 

V. Fahnestock, 54a. 

V. Field, 94, 361. 

V. Grant, 94, 1780. 

V. Hill, 917. 

V. Hughes, 643. 

V. Hummer, 44. 

V. Largent, 850, 1407. 

V. Logan, 1470. 

V. McFarlane, 1203. 

V. Marshall, 769a, 

V. Minor, 199a. 

v. Nassau Bank, 693, 812, 1191. 

V. Poor, 63, 858, 1385. 

V. Pratt, 41. 

V. Richards, 831a. 

V. Stephens, 74, 688a. 

V. Ward, 47. 

V. Whitney, 812. 

V. Yarrington, 867. 
Palo Alto Stock Farm v. Brooker, 193. 
Panhandle Nat. Bank v. Alexander 

et al., 812. 
Pannell v. Hurley, 1612a. 
Papple V. Day, 185. 
Paramore v. Lindsey, 1408, 1419. 
Parcel v. Barnes, 422. 
Parcher v. Saco Sav. Inst., 24. 
Pardee v. Fish, 56, 1702, 1702a, 1703, 

1706, 1707a. 
Pardoe v. Iowa State Nat. Bank, 207. 
Parham v. Murphee, 1197. 
Parham Sewing Machine Co. v. Brock, 

Paris V. Moe, 1230. 
Parish v. Stone, 25, 201. 
Park V. Brooks, 182, 1215. 

t;. Brandt, 775. 

V. Buxton, 775. 

V. Ensign, 1306. 

t;. Exum, 664a, 7816. 

V. Funderburk, 812. 

Park V. McDaniels, 1226. 

V. Nichols, 534. 

V. Ross, 443. 

V. Winsor, 775, 815. 
Park Bank v. Watson, 827, 831c. 
Parke v. Smith, 1217. 
Parker v. Burgess, 368. 

V. Carter, 179. 

V. City of Syracuse, 16a, 21. 

V. Cousins, 370, 373, 1297, 1300, 

V. Davis, 1248. 

V. Enslow, 183. 

V. Gordon, 464a, 508, 600, 601, 
1021, 1038. 

V. Greele, 561. 

V. Kellog, 638. 

V. Leigh, 545. 

V. McDowell, 793. 

V. Macomber, 370a, 372a, 373, 683. 

V. Marston, 24. 

V. Nations, 1305. 

V. Pitts, 70. 

V. Reddick, 470, 605, 1586, 1587. 

v. Roser, 1661. 

V. Stroud, 609, 644. 

V. Sutton, 793. 

V. Taylor, 1312. 

V. Young, 68. 
Parkersburg Nat. Bank v. Als, 1653. 
Parkhurst v. Vail, 1316, 1759, 1760. 
Parkin v. Carruthers, 353, 369b. 

V. Moon 728. 
Parks V. Duke, 32. 

V. Evans, 869. 

V. Smith, 1226, 1259. 
Parlin & Orendorff Co. v. Hutson, 1312, 

Parmelee v. Lawrence, 1565. 

V. Williams, 532, 1312. 
Parnell v. Price, 1319. 
Parr v. City Trust, Safe Deposit & 
Surety Co., 1147. 

V. Eliason, 760. 

V. Erickson, 199a, 728, 769a, 812. 

V. Jewell, 726. 
Parrott v. Colby, 1266a. 
Parry v. Spikes, 1764. 
Parshley v. Heath, 1092a. 
Parsons v. Alexander, 197. 

V. Frost, 185. 

V. Guarantee Investment Co., 394. 

V. Harrold, 1338. 

V. Jackson, 53, 14966, 1506. 

V. Phipps, 1217. 

V. Randolph, 196. 

V. Utica Cement Co., 819. 
Partridge v. Badger, 382, 392a. 

V. Bank of England, 1570, 1651, 



References are to paragraphs marked 

Partridge v. Colby, 94. 
V. Court, 268. 
V. Davis, 1781. 
V. Stocker, 250. 
V. Williams, 824. 
Passmore v. North, 85. 
Passumpsic Bank v. Goss, 854. 
Pastene v. Pardini, 65. 
Pate V. Gray, 1425, 1429. 

V. McClure, 1148, 1151. 
Paterson v. Hardacre, 1483. 
Pates V. St. Clair, 1431. 
Patience v. Townley, 1060, 1068. 
Patillo V. Alexander, 970, 971, 1035. 

V. Mayer, 532. 
Paton V. Coit, 198, 808. 

V. Lent, 1012. 
Patrick v. Beazley, 1014. 
Patridge v. Colby, 1388. 

V. Davis, 688. 
Pattee v. McCrillis, 963. 
Patten v. Ash, 1646, 1648. 
V. Gleason, 7956. 
V. Merchants' Ins. Co., 802. 
V. Moses, 1191. 
V. Pearson, 717. 
V. State Bank, 1695. 
Patterson v. Bank, 191. 
V. Fagan, 1418. 
V. Hardacre, 167. 

V. Kansas City, etc., R. Co., 1729a. 
V. McNeely, 1385. 
V. Marine Bank, 1612. 
V. Poindexter, 35, 1703, 1705. 
V. Todd, 611, 669. 
V. Wright, 787, 1422, 1437. 
Pattison v. Hull, 1250, 1251. 
V. Supervisors, 1524. 
V. Syracuse Nat. Bank, 286a. 
Patton V. Bank of La Fayette, 934, 959. 
V. Cooper, 1326. 
V. Melville, 101. 
V. Shanklin, 1317. 
V. State Bank, 1482. 
Patts V. Bell, 221. 
Paul V. Berry, 318. 
V. Draper, 1611a. 
V. Leeper, 1421. 
V. Rider, 703. 
Paulette v. Brown, 829a. 
Paulman v. Claycomb, 1230a. 
Paul's Episcopal Church v. Fields, 33. 
Paulson V. Boyd, 68a. 
Pauly V. Murray, 85, 707, 1760, 1765. 
Pavenstedt v. N. Y. Life Ins. Co., 426, 

Pavey v. Stauffer, 252, 260, 850. 
Pawcatuck Nat. Bank v. Barber, 908. 
Paxton V. State, 1701. 
Payne v. Albany City Nat. Bank, 698d. 

Payne v. Bensley, 822, 831a. 
V. Caswell, 1458a. 
V. Clark, 86. 
V. Commercial Bank, 1311, 1316, 

V. Cutler, 831c. 
V. Elliot, 1708o. 
V. First Nat. Bank, 271, 795a. 
V. Flournoy, 268. 
V. Gardiner, 1707a. 
V. Jenkins, 36a. 
V. Liebee, 812. 
V. Long, 1375, 1397. 
V. Mutual Life Ins. Co., 80. 
V. Raubinek, 195a. 
V. Zell, 831a. 
Paysant v. Ware, 83. 
Pazton V. State, 1702a. 
Peabody v. Harvey, 1156. 
V. Munson, 679. 
V. Peters, 1436. 
V. Rees, 726a, 803. 
Peachy v. Witter, 1316. 
Peacock v. Purcell, 828, 971, 993, 1276, 
V. Rhodes, 693. 
Peak V. Ellicott, 336. 
Peals V. Peck, 983. 
Pearce v. Austin, 1185, 1200. 
V. Davis, 1623, 1646, 1648. 
V. Dill, 336. 

V. Langfit, 1005a, 1054. 
V. Madison, etc., R. Co., 377. 
V. Wren, 1765. 
Pearl v. Cortright, 713a, 1311. 

V. McDowell, 212, 213. 
Pearsall v. Dwight, 866, 867, 883. 
Pearsoll v. Chapin, 1352a. 
Pearson v. Bank of MetropoUs, 661. 
V. Brown, 177, 179. 
V. Crallan, 1015, 1033, 1034, 1457. 
V. Cummings, 123. 
V. Garrett, 41. 
V. Gooch, 509. 
V. Hardin, 1351. 
V. Pearson, 179. 
V. Stoddard, 76, 715. 
Pease v. Cornish, 430, 433. 
V. Dwight, 706, 1404. 
V. Francis, 1250. 
V. Gloahec, 1750a. 
V. Hirst, 741. 
V. Landauer, 23, 1638. 
V. Morgan, 287. 
V. Pease, 303. 
V. Tilt, 1311. 
Pease & Dwyer Co. ?;. State Nat. Bank, 
1639, 1643. 
V. Warren, 326, 575, 1230a. 
Peaslee v. Robins, 93, 536. 



References are to paragraphs marked § 

Peasley v. Boatwright, 32, 34, 161, 

Peatman v. Light, Heat & Power Co., 

Peavey v. Hovey, 1227. 
Peck V. Cochran, 505. 

V. Dyer, 812, 834a. 

V. First Nat. Bank, 698d. 

V. Hozier, 886. 

V. Mayo, 901, 917, 920. 

V. Regua, 1966. 
Pecker v. Sawj^er, 1217. 
Peckham v. Oilman, 713a. 

V. Van-Bergen, 183. 
Peden v. Moore, 202. 
Peele v. Northcote, 314. 
Peele & Copeland v. Atlantic Coast 

Line R. Co., 1729. 
Peet t;. Zanders, 1121. 
Peets V. Bratt, 63. 
Peetsch v. Sommers, 775. 
Peevey v. Tapley, 1219. 
PehrerLs v. Poetker, 184. 
Peigh V. Huffman, 855. 
Pekin V. Reynolds, 1514. 
Peking v. Rejmolds, 1497. 
Pelly V. Naylor, 815. 

V. Onderdonk, 815. 
Pelt V. Marlar, 1591, 1599. 
Pelton V. Spider Lake Sawmill, etc., Co., 

142, 205, 386, 392a, 795c. 
Pender v. KeUy, 853. 
Pendergast v. Bank of Stockton, 1708d. 
Pendleton v. Bank of Kentucky, 392. 

V. Knickerbocker Life Ins. Co., 

V. Smissaert, 1200. 
Pendleton County v. Amy, 1520, 1523, 

1537, 1545, 1547. 
Pendleton Hardware Co., In re Assign- 
ment of, 139, 140, 394. 
Penfield Inv. Co. v. Bruce, 815. 
Penkwil v. Connell, 298. 
Penn v. Edwards, 1199. 

V. Hamlet, 148. 

V. Harrison, 1678. 
Penn. Bank v. Prankish, 831a. 
Penn Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Con- 

noughy, 305. 
Pennell v. Deffell, 336. 

V. Ennis, 1645. 
Penniman v. Alexander, 29. 

V. Meigs, 875. 
Pennington v. Baehr, 74, 1492a. 
Pennington County Bank v. First State 

Bank, 775. 
Pennock v. Coe, 1491a. 
Penny v. Graves, 81. 

V. Innes, 95a, 705, 714a, 1202a. 
Penobscot R. Co. v. Mayo, 1222. 

Pennsylvania Bank v. Farmers' Nat. 

Bank, 326a. 
Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Shay, 849a. 
Penton v. Wilhams, 74, 1219. 
Pentz V. Simeon, 248. 

V. Stanton, 303, 305. 
People V. American Steam Boiler Ins. 
Co., 394. 

V. Baker, 1623, 1648. 

V. Bank of Dansville, 336. 

V. Batchellor, 1556. 

V. Bird, 1350. 

V. Bostwick, 856. 

V. Brigham, 1346. 

V. City Bank, 334. 

V. Cole, 1344. 

V. Crockett, 1708d. 

V. Dickie, 1344. 

V. Dole, 1347. 

V. Elliott, 1345. 

V. Garner, 1535a. 

V. Gates, 122. 

V. Getchell, 1348. 

V. Gorham, 145, 1571. 

V. Gray, 422, 427. 

V. Hall, 427. 

V. Hayes, 195. 

V. Holden, 1555a. 

V. Howell, 1648. 

V. Johnson, 427. 

V. Jones, 1654. 

V. Kemp, 1567. 

V. Laird, 1344. 

V. Lawrence, 1556, 1557. 

V. Lee, 1345. 

V. Lewinger, 1344. 

V. Lundin, 1345. 

V. McDermott, 108. 

V. Mead, 1495, 1552, 1555a. 

V. Merchants' Bank, 336. 

V. Mitchell, 1349, 1350, 1557. 

V. North River Bank, 1003. 

V. Rimington, 16a. 

V. St. Nicholas' Bank, 326a, 337, 
1425, 1601a, 1636. 

V. Sanders, 1344. 

V. State Treasurer, 1685, 1686. 

V. Stupp, 427. 

V. Supervisors El Dorado County, 
422, 427, 1536. 

V. Tazewell County, 1497, 1514. 

V. Township Board of Salem, 1523. 

V. Warfield, 1535a. 

V. Waynesville, 1536. 

V. Weant, 1535a. 

V. Whiteman, 1344, 1350. 
People's Bank v. Bogart, 731, 736y 

V. Brooke, 952, 698d. 

V. Gridley, 1708e. 


References are to paragraphs marked 

People's Bank v. Jefferson County Sav. 
Bank, 337. 

V. Keech, 999, 999a. 

V. Legrand, 3266, 1319. 

V. Lutterloh, 635. 

V. Pearson, 1317, 1332. 

V. Scalzo, 960, 962, 1003. 

V. School DLst., 337, 377. 
People's Bank of Minneapolis v. Reid, 

776. , ^ . 

People's & Drovers' Bank v. Lraig, 

People's Nat. Bank v. Freeman's Nat. 
Bank, 347. 
V. Hazard, 769a. 
V. Schepflin, 189, 240. 
People's Sav. Bank v. Capps, 1654a. 
V. Gifford, 195a, 1623. 
V. Smith, 366. 
People's State Bank v. Ruxer, 193, 852. 
Peoria Mfg. Co. v. Huff, 189, 1332, 

Peoria &c. R. Co. v. Tazewell, 1535. 
V. Thompson, 834. 
V. U. S. Rolling Stock Co., 1741. 
Peoria R. Co. v. Neill, 533. 
Pepoon V. Stagg, 39, 1395. 
Pepper Distributing Co. v. Alexander, 

Percival v. Framton, 165, 183a. 
Perez v. Bank of Key West, 1227. 
Perfect v. Murgrave, 1336. 
Perkins v. Barstow, 713o, 716, 1215a. 
V. Catlin, 1765. 
V. Challis, 796. 
V. Clements, 1184. 
V. Commonwealth, 1346. 
V. Cumming, 204. 
V. Franklin Bank, 622, 633, 1671. 
V. Hawkins, 1429. 
V. Lyman, 196. 
V. Prout, 815. 
V. Trinity Realty Co., 386. 
V. White, 789a, 1113. 
Perkins Bros. v. Gumbel, 834. 
Perkins' Wind Mill, etc., Co. v. Tillman, 

Perley v. Perley, 164. 
Perot V. Cooper, 812. 
Perreia v. Jopp, 116, 463. 
Perrin v. Broadwell, 1304. 
V. Keene, 370. 
V. Noyes, 815. 
Perring v. Hone, 361, 1390. 
Perry v. Bamett, 1753. 
V. Bigelow, 51a, 149. 
V. Bray, 688. 
V. Crammonds, 64. 
V. Friend, 713d. 
V. Green, 607, 609. 

Perry v. Hadnett, 1338. 
V. Harrington, 513. 
V. Mays, 1437. 

V. German & Blaebaum, 1225. 
V. Sumrall Lumber Co., 389. 
V. Taylor, 1458a. 
V. Van Norden Trust Co., 1236. 
V. Wheeler, 1181a. 
Perry Co. v. Taylor Bros., 714, 971. 
Perry State Bank v. Elledge, 164. 
Persifull v. Pineville Banking Co., 1327. 
Persons v. Hawkins, 816. 

V. Kruger, 995a, 998, 1054, 1056. 
Perth Amboy Mut. Loan, H. & B. Assn. 

V. Chapman, 775, 799, 822. 
Peru V. Farns worth, 56. 
Peru Plow & Wheel Co. v. Ward, 1401. 
Peruvian R. Co. v. Thames & Mersey 

Mut. Ins. Co., 380. 
Peters v. Anderson, 1252. 
V. Barnhill, 1339. 
i;. Beverley, 1260. 
t;. Gay, 790. 
V. Hobbs, 1023. 
V. Nolan Coal Co., 713a. 
Peterson v. FuUcrton, 1233. 
V. Homan, 305. 
t^. Hubbard, 497b. 
V. Mayor of New York, 317. 
V. Stoughton State Bank, 62. 
V. Tillinghast, 81a. 
V. Union Nat. Bank, 1596. 
Petillon V. Noble, 834. 
Petingale v. Barker, 240. 
Petit V. Benson, 508, 516. 
Peto V. Reynolds, 96, 97. 
Petrie v. Feeter, 1309. 
V. Hannay, 200. 
V. Miller, 831a, 832. 
Petrie, Matter of, 316. 
Petrue v. Wakem & McLaughlin, 1470. 
Pettee v. Prout, 1200, 1431, 1436. 
Petty V. Douglas, 13176. 
V. Fleispel, 86. 
V. Gacking, 1753. 
V. Hinman, 758, 778. 
Pettyjohn v. National Exch. Bank, 

Peymen v. Bowery Bank, 1425. 
Peyser v. Cole, 62. 
Peyton v. Hallett, 16a, 21, 23. 
V. Harman, 76. 

V. Planters' Compress Co., 742. 
Pfiel V. Vanbatenberg, 1206, 1227. 
Pharr v. Stevens, 714. 
Phelan v. Moss, 773, 775, 779a, 1407, 

Phelps V. Alfred Bank, 1535. 
V. Borland, 305. 
V. Church, 1777. 



References are to paragraphs marked § 

Phelps V. Mayers, 156. 
V. Moomaw, 49. 
V. Northrup, 504. 
V. Phelps, 179. 

V. Stocking, 1005, 1021, 1037. 
V. Town, 56. 

V. Vischer, 709, 713d, 713e. 
V. Yates, 1495. 
V. Younger, 196&. 
Phetteplace v. Bucklin, 1226. 
Philadelphia v. Field, 1556. 

V. Stewart, 1262. ^. ^ 

Philadelphia & R. R. Co. t^. Fidehty & 
Tr. Co., 1509, 1513. 
V. Smith, 1509, 1513. 
Philadelphia Bank v. Newkirk, 54. 
Philadelphia, etc., R. Co. v. Northam, 

Philadelphia Loan Co. v. Towner, 384. 
Philadelphia Nat. Bank v. Dowd, 336. 
Philadelphia R. Co. v. Knight, 1513. 
Philipe V. Haberlee, 1007. 
Philip Semmer Glass Co., In re, 260. 
Philler v. Patterson, 1712a. 

V. Yardley, 1712o. 
Phillip & William Ebbing Brewing Co. 

V. Reinheimer, 1018. 
PhiUips V. Alderson, 1016. 
V. Astberg, 590. 
V. Buliard, 1623. 
V. Cripps, 1401. 
V. Dipps, 1092. 
V. Dugan, 1247. 
V. Frost, 497. 
V. Giflford, 168. 
V. Gould, 972, 983. 
V. Inthun, 136, 908. 
V. Knight, 300. 
V. Lindley, 1789. 
t;. McCurdy, 930, 1154. 
V. Mercantile Nat. Bank, 140. 
V. M. & N. Bank, 392. 
V. Moily, 81c. 
V. Paget, 227. 
V. Plato, 1340, 1753. 
t;. Poindexter, 964. 
V. Preston, 187, 703. 
V. Sanger Lumber Co., 274. 
V. Thurn, 528. 
V. Trowbridge, 1154. 
Philliskirk v. Pluckwell, 254, 256, 686, 

Philpot V. Temple Banking Co., 1698. 
Philpott V. Bryant, 454, 591, 1316. 

V. Jones, 1250. 
Phinney v. Baldwin, 1458a. 

V. State, 1645. 
Phipps V. Chase, 1146. 

«;. Harding, 868, 895, 899, 1171, 

Phipps V. Millbury Bank, 331. 

V. Tanner, 86a. 
Phipson V. Kneller, 1094, 1103. 
Phoenix Assur. Co. v. Fristoe, 1181a. 
Phoenix Bank v. Hussey, 9, 926. 

V. Risley, 334. 
Phoenix Ins. Co. v. AUen, 472, 1272, 
V. Church, 831c, 1266c. 
V. Gray, 472. 
t'. Landis, 1326. 
V. Owens, 81c, 177. 
Phoenix Nat. Bank v. Saucier, 729. 
Pickard v. Bankes, 1687. 
Pickens v. Post, 812. 
Pickens County v. Daniel, 1508a. 
Pickens Township v. Post, 800a, 803, 

1537, 1542. 
Picker v. Harlan, 1177. 
Pickering v. Cameron, 18. 
V. Cording, 130, 6886. 
Pickett V. Stewart, 1195. 
Pickin V. Graham, 1158. 
Pickle I'. People's Nat. Bank, 1618, 

1636, 1647, 1663. 
Pickslay v. Starr, 180. 
Picquet v. Curtis, 576, 643. 
Pidcock V. J. Crouch & Son, 81a. 

V. Merchants' Nat. Bank, 777. 
Piedmont Bank v. Hatcher, 815. 
Piedmont Guano Co. v. Morris, 1753. 
Piemental v. Marques, 1321. 
Pier V. Heuxrichsoffen, 1068a. 
Pierce v. Gate, 1144, 1210. 
V. Drake, 1269. 
V. Gilson, 1227. 
V. Goldberry-, 1317a. 
t^. Indseth, 879, 908, 945, 947. 
V. Kennedy, 713c. 
V. Kibbe, 196a. 
V. Kittredge, 504. 
11. Merrill, 1769. 
V. Pendar, 1005. 
V. Schader, 973. 
V. So. Pac. Ry. Co., 1741. 
V. Stolhand, 164, 188. 
V. Strathers, 1030. 
V. United States, 440. 
V. Whitney, 1109. 
Pierce City Nat. Bank v. Hughlett, 

Piercy v. Piercy, 1391, 1418. 
Pierpont v. Johnson, 741. 
Piersol v. Grimes, 1373a. 
Pierson v. Dunlop, 503, 552, 554, 555. 
V. Huntington. 775, 814. 
V. Hutchinson, 1475, 1482. 
V. W^allace, 1672. 
Pike j;. Irvin, 568, 569. 
V. Street, 717, 720a. 


References are to paragraphs marked § 

Pilkinton v. Commissioners of Claims, 
V. Woods, 449. 
Pillans V. Van Mierop, 176, 529, 553, 

Pillow V. Hardeman, 1000. 
V. Helm, 12816. 
V. Roberts, 947. 
Pilmer v. Branch Bank, 56. 
Pimental v. Marques, 1338. 
Pinard v. Klockman, 115. 
Pinckney v. Keyler, 1428. 
Pindall v. Bank of Marietta, 1250. 

V. N. W. Bank, 1675. 
Pindar v. Barlow, 145. 
Pine V. Smith, 787a, 894. 
Pine Grove Township v. Talcott, 10, 

423, 1521, 1523, 1524, 1526. 
Piner v. Clary, 604, 605, 928. 
Pinkerton v. Bailey, 728. 

V. Manchester & L. R. Co., 1708e. 
Pinkerton's Estate, In re, 1417. 
Pink Front Bankrupt Store v. G. A. 

Mistrot & Co., 1590. 
Pinkham v. Macy, 983. 
Pinkney v. Hall, 6, 488. 
Pinnel's Case, 1289. 
Pinnes v. Ely, 688c. 
Pinney v. First Nat. Bank of Concordia, 

Pintard v. Tackington, 1472, 1484. 
Pioneer Fuel Co. v. McBrier, 1738. 
Piper V. Hayward, 591. 

V. Neylon, 776. 
Pirie, In re, 1219. 
Pirkle v. Chamblee, 1338. 
Pitcher v. Barrows, 354. 
Pitkin V. Clayton, 741. 
Pitman v. Breckenridge, 970. 
V. Crawford, 50. 
V. Kintner, 306, 402, 408. 
Pitt V. Chappeow, 242, 535. 

V. Little, 80, 185, 1290, 1398. 
V. Purssord, 1340, 1341. 
V. Smith, 214. 
Pitts V. Foglesong, 793a, 830, 831a. 

V. Keyser, 1198. 
Pittsburg, C, C. & St. L. R. Co. v. 

Am. Tobacco Co., 1729a. 
Pittsburg, etc., Ry. Co. v. Lynde, 854, 

1491a, 1506. 
Plain V. Roth, 1252. 
Plankinton v. Gorman, 1311. 

V. Hilderbrand, 1708d. 
Plant V. Voeglin, 859. 
Planters' Bank v. Bradford, 1032. 
V. Douglas, 532. 
V. Erwin, 387. 
V. Evans, 128, 668. 
V. Housen, 719a. 

Planters' Bank v. Kesee, 1567, 1568, 
1569, 1587, 1636. 
V. Markham, 600. 
V. Merrit, 1636. 
V. Sharp, 385. 
V. White, 1000. 
V. Union Bank, 200. 
Planters' & Merchants' Bank v. Goet- 

ter, 751. 
Planters, etc., Nat. Bank v. Roberston, 

Planters' Fertilizer & Mfg. Co. v. Elder, 

Planters' Ins. Co. v. Tunstall, 748a. 
Planters' Rice Mill Co. v. Merchants' 

Nat. Bank, 1714. 
Planters' State Bank v. Schlamp, 

Plasterstein v. Hoes, 24. 
Piatt V. Beebe, 183a. 
V. Drake, 983. 

V. Hitchcock Co., 1539, 1542. 
V. Jerome, 861. 
V. Koehler, Dickey & Co., 357, 

366, 369. 
V. Sauk County Bank, 56. 
V. Smith, 1383. 
V. Snipes, 174. 
Platzer v. Norris, 73. 
Plets V. Johnson, 130, 139. 
Plock V. Cobb, 441, 437a, 1400, 1500, 

Plover Savings Bank v. Moodie, 1599. 
Plummer v. Farmers' Bank, 859. 

V. Lyman, 566. 
Plyler v. Eliot, 1385. 
Pochin V. Knoebel, 1230. 
Podmore v. South Brooklyn Sav. Inst., 

Poess V. Twelfth Ward Bank, 1603, 

Pogue V. Clarke, 94. 
Pohlman v. Wilcox, 509. 
Poindexter v. Greenhow, 448. 

V. McDowell, 193, 850. 
Poirier v. Morris, 827, 1192. 
Poland V. Love, 1644. 
Polhemus v. Prudential Realty Corp., 

63, 189, 703, 1198. 
Polhill V. Walter, 307, 362, 485. 
Police Jury v. Britton, 420, 422. 
Polk V. Spinks, 1064. 
Polkinghorne v. Hendricks, 713a. 
Pollard V. Bowen, 1586, 1600. 
V. Herries, 54, 1453. 
V. Huff, 1781. 
V. Reardon, 1727. 
V. Vinton, 1733. 
Policy V. Hicks, 24a. 
Pollock V. Bradbury, 721. 



References are to paragraphs marked § 

Pollock V. Carolina Interstate Bldg., 
Loan Assn., 1612a. 

V. Glassel, 34. 

V. Helm, 1797a. 
Pollock & Bernheimer et al. v. Simmons 

Bros, et al, 832. 
Polo Mfg. Co. V. Parr, 151. 
Pomeroy v. Ainsworth, 879. 

V. Rice, 835a, 12666, 1267. 

V. Tanner, 1312, 1329. 
Pompton V. Cooper Union, 1523a, 1537, 

Poncin v. Furth, 812. 
Pond V. Underwood, 1615, 

V. Waterloo Agricultural Works, 
Pons V. Kelly, 1082. 
Poock V. Lafayette Bank, 386a. 
Pool V. Anderson, 5, 709, 714, 1095a. 
Poole V. Dicas, 580. 

V. Rice, 305, 1260. 

V. Tolleson, 611. 
Pooley V. Harradine, 1334, 1335, 1336, 

Poore V. Magruder, 284. 
Poorman v. Mills, 1195, 1703. 
Pope V. Askew, 1219. 

V. Bank of Albion, 392, 1606a, 
1610, 16106. 

V. Burnset, 119. 

V. Hanke, 197, 808, 866. 

V. Huth, 23, 513. 

V. Linn, 69, 70. 

V. Peterson, 81a. 
Poplewell V. Wilson, 108, 186. 
Popley V. Ashlin, 736, 1269. 
Porteous v. Muri, 80. 
Porter v. City of Janesville, 10a, 99, 

V. Cummings, 287. 

V. Cushman, 574, 694a, 1230a. 

V. Havers, 196. 

t;. Hine, 703. 

V. Jones, 196. 

V. Judson, 1116. 

V. Kemball, 1094, 1095a. 

V. Neckervis, 687, 1429. 

V. Pittsburg Steel Co., 803. 

V. Porter, 88. 

V. Roseman, 1230. 

V. Talcott, 1264. 

«;. Thom, 654, 1149, 1150, 1162, 
1165, 1166, 1168. 

V. Waltz, 710. 

V. Woods, 303. 
Poi-thouse V. Parker, 1086. 
Portland, etc., R. Co. v. Hartford, 1551. 
Portsmouth Sav. Bank v. Wilson, 713, 

7136, 1092a. 
Posey V. Decatur Bank, 508, 654, 1478. 

Potter V. Earnest, 80. 

V. Merchants' Bank, 392. 

V. Ray worth, 1110, 1158. 

V. Sheets, 174a. 

V. Stransky, 748. 

V. Tallman, 922. 

V. Tyler, 663. 
Pottlitzer v. Wesson, 1289. 
Potts V. Blackwell, 834a. 

V. Coleman, 1227. 

V. Mayer, 831c. 

V. Reed, 6986, 699. 
Poucher v. Scott, 1646. 
Povall V. Danville Cigar Mfg. Co., 1590. 
Powell V. Bank, 1376. 

V. Charless, 1299, 1300. 

V. Commonwealth, 1344. 

V. Duff, 142. 

V. Feeley, 125. 

V. Hogue, 1429. 

V. Hurt, 264. 

V. Jones, 506. 

V. Monnier, 532, 1466. 

V. Patison, 833. 

V. Roach, 1475. 

V. Waters, 65, 630, 726, 750, 751, 
752, 790, 793, 1190. 
Power V. Finnic, 698. 

V. First Nat. Bank, 342. 

V. Hambrick, 161, 183, 724a. 

V. Hathaway, 884. 

V. Silberstein, 1313. 
Powers V. Briggs, 403, 405. 

t;. Bumcranz 17856. 

V. French, 175. 

V. Lynch, 678. 

V. Manning, 45a, 46. 

V. Neeson, 724. 

V. Provident Ins. Co., 246. 

V. Woolfolk, 326, 1230, 1321, 1436. 
Poydras v. Delamere, 22, 23. 
Prall V. Tilt, 1708^. 
Pranell v. Davenport, 183. 
Prather v. Gammon, 13176. 
Pratt V. Beaupre, 305, 418. 

V. Chase, 875, 1283, 1331. 

V. Coman, 183a, 831c. 

V. Foote, 1266a, 1620, 

V. Johnson, 202. 

V. Parkman, 1731. 

V. Topeka, 1188. 
Pratt & Whitney Co. v. American Pneu- 
matic Tool Co., 68a, 816. 
Preas v. Vollintine, 81a, 164. 
Prehn v. Royal Bank of Liverpool, 

Prentice v. Zane, 803, 831a. 
Prentiss f. Danielson, 1143. 

V. Graves, 831a. 

V. Savage, 879, 921. 



References are to paragraphs marked § 

Prentiss v. Sinclair, 3696, 

V. Strand, 803. 
Presbrey v. Thomas, 358a, 365, 367, 

Prescost v. Flinn, 290, 296. 

V. Hixon, 80, 403. 

V. Hull, 741. 

V. Ward, 187a. 

V. Williamsport & Co., 1478. 
Prescott Bank i;. Caverly, 242, 466, 467, 

472, 675, 719. 
Prescott Nat. Bank v. Butler, 69, 70, 

Press Co. v. City Bank, 197, 199, 

Preston v. Canadian Bank of Com- 
merce, 1622a. 

V. Dozier, 995. 

V. Dunn, 46. 

V. ElUngton, 719. 

V. Gould, 710. 

V. Hull, 148, 1496, 1499. 

V. Jackson, 206. 

V. Mo., etc., Lead Co., 387. 

V. Morris, 834. 

V. Northwestern Cereal Co., 386. 

V. Whitney, 51a. 
Prestwick v. Marshall, 242, 252, 681. 
Prettyman v. Supervisors, 1523, 1524, 

V. Tazwell Co., 1497. 

V. The Board of Supervisors of 
Tazwell County, 1497. 
Prewett v. Citizens Nat. Bank, 193. 
Price V. Barker, 1295. 

V. Cannon, 1289. 

V. Dime Sav. Bank, 1311, 1317&. 

V. Dunlap, 1481, 1484. 

V. Edmunds, 1319, 1336. 

V. Gatliff, 879. 

V. Horton, 1342. 

V. Jones, 46. 

V. Keen, 174a. 

V. Lavender, 713e, 715, 716. 

V. Mitchell, 1316. 

V. Neal, 533, 1225, 1360, 1361. 

V. Page, 898. 

V. Price, 1260, 1270, 1272, 1475. 

V. Taylor, 402. 

V. Teal, 53, 54. 

V. Torrington, 1057. 

V. Trusdell, 703. 

V. Warner, 986. 

V. White, 188. 

V. Winnebago Nat. Bank, 573, 

V. Wisconsin Co., 1747a. 

V. Young, 591, 1036, 1111. 
Price County Bank v. McKenzie, 1311. 
Prideaux v. Collier, 1075, 1107, 1163. 

Prideaux v. Criddle, 1599. 
Pridgen v. Andrews, 1458a. 

V. Cox, 502. 
Priest V. Watson, 1305, 1311. 
Prieto V. Leonards, 262. 
Prigeon v. Smith, 170. 
Prim V. Hammel, 86, 142, 1230, 1384. 

V. Mcintosh, 742. 
Prince v. Brunatte, 242, 681. 
Bring v. Clarkson, 1328, 1329. 
Pringle v. Phillips, 775, 814. 
Prins V. South Branch Lumber Co., 

Pritchard v. Norwood, 1468. 

V. Norton, 865. 

V. Scott, 1014. 

?;. Smith, 1268. 
Pritchett v. Sheridan, 164. 
Proctor V. Baldwin, 62, 831a. 

V. Blanchard, 189. 

V. Cole, 778. 

V. Sears, 233. 

V. Webber, 404. 

V. Whitcomb, 793. 
Produce Bank v. Bache, 185. 
Produce Exch. Trust Co. v. Bieber- 

bach, 403. 
Proseus v. Porter, 16126. 
Protection Ins. Co. v. Hill, 47. 
Prouty r Wilson, 1321. 
Providence County Savings Bank v. 

Vadnais, 1203. 
Provident Nat. Bank v. C. D. Harnett 

Co., 17. 
Provident Trust Co. v. Mercer Co., 

la, 68, 1520, 1537. 
Provines v. Wilder, 1316. 
Prussing v. Lancaster, 1317, 1321. 
Pruyne v. Milwaukee, 1458a. 
Pryce v. Jordan, 1200. 
Pryibil v. Altemeyer, 1181a. 
Pryor v. Bowman, 996. 

V. Ludden & Bates Southern 
Music House, 202. 

V. Storke, 790. 
Puffer V. Smith, 849. 
Puget de Bras v. Forbes, 174, 177, 178, 

Pugh V. Cameron, 880, 895, 923. 

V. Moore, Hyams & Co., 305. 
Pulaski V. Gilmore, 1532. 
Pullen V. Chase, 1458. 

V. Placer County Bank, 180. 

V. Shaw, 1420. 

V. Ward, 834, 835. 
PuUy V. Pass, 1340. 
Pulsifer v. Hotchkiss, 203. 
Pundmann v. Schoenich, 1612a. 
Purcell V. Allemong, 1567, 1586, 1587, 

1596, 1636. 



References are to paragraphs marked § 

Purcell V. Armour Packing Co., 68a, 

81a, 1646, 1652. 
Purchase v. Mattison, 792, 1049, 1105, 

Purdy V. Lansing, 1544. 
Purviance v. Jones, 63. 
Puryear v. McGavock, 200. 
Putnam v. Crymes, 105. 

V. Dike, 884. 

V. Lewis, 1272, 1273, 1267. 

V. Schuyler, 1309. 

«;. SuUivan, 143, 147, 843, 847, 
850, 1144. 

V. Tash, 1758. 
Putnam Nat. Bank v. Snow, 504, 560. 
Putney v. Farnham, 567. 
Pyle V. Gallaher, 163, 174, 203, 1252. 
Pym V. Campbell, 68a. 
Pyron & Son v. Ruohs, 52. 

Quaintance v. Goodrow, 1090, 1091, 

Quaker City Bank v. Showacre, 869. 
Quebec Bank v. Hellman, 855a. 
Queen v. Silverlock, 1219. 
Queensbury, Tovm of, v. Culver, 1489, 

1521, 1523, 1556. 
Quiggle V. Herman, 197. 
Quigley v. Mex. So. Bank, 664a, 781a. 
Quimby i'. Buzzell, 112. 

V. Stoddard, 725a, 782. 

V. Vamum, 714, 1204, 1236a. 
Quin V. Hanford, 569. 

V. Sterne, 688, 710, 716. 
Quinby v. Merritt, 55, 103. 
Quincey, etc., R. Co. v. Morris, 1523. 
Quinlan v. Fairchild, 816, 1226, 1243. 
Quinn v. Hard, 793a, 814, 1190. 

V. Tuller, 190. 

Raborg v. Peyton, 534. 
RadcUffe v. Biles, 849a. 
Radford's Adm'rs v. Harris, 1219. 
Rae V. Halbert, 1426. 
Raesser v. Nat. Exch. Bank, 1643. 
Ragget V. Axmore, 1333. 
Ragsdale v. Gresham, 164, 174a, 532, 
534 567. 

V. Southern R. Co., 1470. 
Rahm v. Philadelphia Bank, 656. 
Railroad Co. v. Bank, 1636. 

V.Buckley, 1623. 

V. Chamberlain, 176, 186. 

V. County of Otoe, 1523. 

V. Evansville, 382, 1527a. 

V. FraloflF, 1740a. 

Railroad Co. v. Howard, 383, 1708. 

V. Johnson, 1248. 

V. Lickiss, 63. 

V. Nat. Bank, 10, 831&. 

V. Otoe County, 1521. 

i;. Schutte, 441, 673, 758&, 1517a. 

V. Stout, 1370. 

V. Tieman, 397. 

V. Yeager, 1733. 
Railroad Nat. Bank v. Lowell, 422a. 
Railway Co. v. Citizens' Nat. Bank, 

V. Cleneay, 1489, 1500. 

V. Lynde, 33, 800a. 

V. Sprague, 1506. 
Rainbolt v. Eddy, 1406. 
Raine v. Rice, 962. 
Raleigh & Gaston v. Lowe, 1727, 1747a, 

RaUi V. Sarell, 508. 
Ralls County v. Douglass, 1543. 
Ralston t^. BuUitts, 1083, 1106. 
Rait V. Watson, 1484. 
Ramboy v. Stansburg, 394. 
Ramdulloday v. Darieux, 1083. 
Ramish v. Kirschbraum, 17346. 
Ramsay & Bro. v. Capshaw, 81rf. 
Ramsdale v. Horton, 1675. 
Ramsdell v. Morgan, 807. 
Ramsey v. Anderson, 1189. 

V. Thomas, 62. 

V. Young, 81a. 
Ramuz v. Growe, 1484. 
Rand v. Barrett, 1221, 1343. 

V. Dovey, 32a, 664a, 1196. 

V. Hale, 403. 

V. Hubbard, 261. 

V. Reynolds, 1028. 

V. State of N. C, 797. 
Randahl v. Lindolm, 1203. 
Randall v. Fox, 382. 

V. Lee & Randall, 358a. 

V. Rhode Island Lumber Co., 396, 
Randall Co. v. Glendenning, 742. 
Randle v. Davis Coal Co., 713a, 715, 

717, 719. 
Randolph v. Cooke, 1209. 

t;. Hudson, 30, 53, 1470. 

V. Parish, 128. 
Randolph County v. Post, 1523, 1548. 
Randolph Nat. Bank v. Homblower, 

Raney v. Winter, 298, 411. 
Ranger v. Carey, 746, 783. 

V. Sargent, 1771. 
Rankin v. Childs, 1785&. 

i;. Knight, 187. 

V. Roler, 32. 

V. Weguelin, 24. 


References are to paragraphs marked § 

Ransom v. Mack, 984, 1014, 1115. 

Ranson v. Sherwood, 713c. 

Rapelye v. Bailey, 17856. 

Raper v. Birkbeck, 549. 

Raphael v. Bank of England, 774, 1680. 

Rapp V. Phoenix Ins. Co., 1770a. 

Rasmussen v. State Nat. Bank, 1289. 

Rastell V. Draper, 1580. 

Ratcliff V. Everman, 268. 

V. Planters' Bank, 1144. 
Rathborne v. Railroad Co., 1740a. 
Rathbun v. Citizens' Steamboat Co., 

Rathfon v. Locher, 205. 
Rattlemiller v. Stone, 1760. 
Rauer v. Broder, 598. 
Raught V. Black, 1319. 
Rawlings v. Robson, 305. 
Rawlinson v. Stone, 242, 680. 
Rawson v. Davidson, 32. 

V. Walker, 80, 81. 
Rawstone v. Parr, 81c. 
Ray V. Anderson, 90, 1181a. 

V. Baker, 156. 

V. Faulkner, 513. 

V. Indianapolis Ins. Co., 93. 

V. McMillan, 764. 

V. Morgan, 534. 

V. Pease, 1213. 

V. Simmons, 24a. 

V. Smith, 1128, 1143. 

V. Tubbs, 224. 
Ray County v. Van Sycle, 1523a, 1545. 
Raymond v. Baar, 1675. 

V. Holmes, 898, 901, 909, 910. 

V. McNeal, 710. 

V. Mann, 128. 

V. Merchant, 1275. 

V. Middleton, 106. 

V. Palmer, 326&. 

V. Sellick, 25. 
Rayne v. Dillo, 670. 
Raynor v. Laux, 1272. 
Rea V. Dorrance, 1083. 

V. Owens, 1289. 
Read v. Adams, 930. 

V. Bank of Kentucky, 934a. 

V. Cutts, 1786. 

V. Marine Bank of Buffalo, 654, 

V. McNulty, 54. 

V. Marsh, 552, 553. 

V. Norris, 1342. 

V. Wheeler, 36a, 39. 

V. Wilkinson, 508, 1162. 
Reading v. Beardsley, 1198. 
Reakert v. Sanford, 253, 681. 
Real Estate Trust Co. v. Union Trust 

Co., 1491a. 
Reamer v. Bell, 692. 

Reapers' Bank v. Williard, 1686. 
Reardan v. Cockrell, 725, 1230. 
Reardon v. Moriarty, 81c. 
Reavis v. Blackshear, 170. 
Reboulin Fils & Co., In re, 1731. 
Receivers v. Grant, 1712a. 
Recke v. Sayers, 149. 
Red V. Mattapan Deposit &c. Co., 

Redd V. Supervisors, 1560. 
Redden v. First Nat. Bank, 730, 1284. 

V. Lambert, 666, 713a, 7136, 926. 
Reddick v. Jones, 832. 

r. Young, 142, 1651. 
Redenbaugh v. Kilton, 1300. 
Redding v. Redding, 163. 
Redington v. Wood, 672, 677, 815, 

1661, 1654a. 
Redhch v. Doll, 124, 143, 842, 843, 

1406, 1498. 
Redlow V. Churchill, 368. 
Redman v. Adams, 51. 

V. Deputy, 1317. 

V. Murrell, 1310. 
Redmayne v. Burton, 1696. 
Redmond v. Stansburry, 1200. 
Red River Nat. Bank v. Bray, 1312. 
Reed v. Bacon, 369. 

V. Bank of Ukiah, 197. 

t;. Batchelder, 223, 230. 

V. Boardman, 1251. 

V. Boshears, 231, 233, 235. 

V. Evans, 1764. 

V. First Nat. Bank, 187, 812, 833. 

V. Fleming, 408, 418. 

V. McCready, 1181a. 

V. Payne, 1025. 

V. Roark, 1400. 

V. Spear, 988. 

V. Stapp, 724a. 

V. Tiemey, 1317a. 

V. Tioga Mfg. Co., 90a. 

V. Trentman, 792. 

V. White, 1299. 

V. Whitney, 1428. 

V. Wilson, 600, 622, 627. 
Reeder v. Nay, 1260. 
Reeds v. Spear, 591, 971. 
Reedv v. Brunner, 859. 

V. Elevator Co., 680. 

V. Siexas, 979a. 
Rees V. Abbott, 94. 

V. Berrington, 1336. 

V. Conococheauge Bank, 145, 663, 
694, 695, 1195. 

V. Warwick, 503, 506. 
Reese v. Bank of Commerce, 1708d. 
Reeve v. First Nat. Bank, 403. 

V. Pack, 643. 
Reeve's Estate, In re, 63, 63a, 67. 



References are to paragraphs marked § 

Reeves v. Howe, 995. 

V. Letts, 776, 769a, 832, 1262. 

V. Pierson, 1385, 1394. 

V. ScuUy, 834. 

V. State Bank, 328, 341, 344. 
Regan v. Jones, 1183a. 

V. Williams, 1316. 
Regenia v. Coulsen, 1348. 
Regensburg v. Notestine, 193. 
Regent's Canal Iron Works Co., In 

re, 1491a. 
Regester's Sons Co. v. Reed, 815. 
Regina v. Coulsen, 1348. 

V. Harper, 92. 

V. Hawkes, 96. 

V. Keith, 1346. 

V. Sewel, 207. 

V. Watts, 1649. 

V. Wilson, 1344. 
Regina Flour Mills Co. v. Holmes, 

Regis Paper Co. v. Tonawanda Board 

& Paper Co., 1601a. 
Reichert v. Koerner, 726a. 
Reid V. Bank of Mobile, 815, 829a, 832, 
1500, 1501b. 

V. Coats, 971. 

V. Furnival, 181, 668. 

V. Kellogg, 1230. 

V. Morrison, 1144, 1145. 

V. Payne, 1022. 

V. Reid, 1595. 

V. Rigby & Co., 322. 

V. Smart, 1254. 
Reid's Admr. v. Windsor, 130, 1183. 
Reid, Murdoch & Co. v. Sheflfy, 800a. 
Reigart v. White, 1753. 
Reinbath v. Pittsburgh, 1527a, 1532. 
Reinhart v. Schall, 703. 
Reinheart v. Dorsey Coal Co., 812. 

V. Schall, 704. 
Reinke v. Wright, 637, 1114. 
Reints & De Buhr v. Uhlen, 1310. 
Relyea v. N. H. RolUng Mill Co., 

Remington v. Dental Mfg. Co., 81c, 

174, 185. 
Rendell v. Harriman, 80, 402, 403. 
Renfro v. Merchants' Bank, 1706a. 
Renick v. Robbins, 991. 
Renner v. Bank of Columbia, 622, 623, 
1472, 1473. 1481. 

V. United States, 622. 
Renshaw v. Richards, 643. 

V. Triplett, 987. 
Renwick v. Williams, 725a. 
Requa v. Collins, 1032. 
Revel V. Revel, 256. 
Revell V. Thrash, 1317, 1318, 1319. 
Revere v. Chambliss, 1643. 

Rew V. Barber, 1264. 
Rex V. Atkinson, 1347. 

V. Beckett, 1350. 

V. Begg, 688. 

V. Box, 101, 104. 

V. Burke, 1346. 

V. Carter, 1219. 

V. Elliott, 86a, 1580. 

V. Hales, 1344. 

V. Hall, 1346. 

V. Hart, 1344. 

V. Hunter, 133. 

V. Lambton, 67, 667a. 

V. Palmer, 1350. 

V. Parke, 1345. 

V. Pateman, 1346. 

V. Plumer, 1052. 

V. Post, 76, 1346, 1347, 1350. 

V. Randall, 145. 

V. Reculist, 1346. 

V. Richards, 1346. 

V. Rogers, 1345. 

V. Shukard, 1350. 

V. Treble, 1346, 1378. 

V. Webb, 1345. 

V. Wilcox, 56, 57. 
Rey V. Kinnear, 481. 

r. Simpson, 703, 710, 712, 713a, 
Reyburn v. Queen City Sav. Bank & 

Trust Co., 189. 
Reynes v. Dumont, 3346. 
Reynolds v. Appleman, 969, 979, 984. 

V. Chettle, 588, 656. 

V. Douglass, 1147, 1788. 

V. French, 1468a. 

V. Kent, 1191. 

V. Middleton, 703a. 

V. Peto, 96, 506. 

V. Robinson, 68a. 

V. Roth, 175, 769a. 

V. Schade, 1266, 1338. 
Rhemstron v. Cone, 124. 
Rhett V. Poe, 999, 999a, 1058, 1081, 

1086, 1788. 
Rhinehart v. Schall, 815. 
Rhoades v. Leach, 1387. 
Rhoades, Ex parte, 1144. 
Rhode V. Alley, 728. 

t;. Proctor, 1002. 
Rhodes v. Beall, 198. 

V. Guhman, 164. 

V. Lindley, 55. 

V. Newhall, 1729a. 

V. Seymour, 608, 713c. 

V. Webb-Jameson Co., 1260, 1282. 
Ribner v. Kleinberg, 193. 
Rice V. Barrington, 776. 

V. Dudley, 22, 1623, 1644. 

V. Gove, 401. 



References are to paragraphs marked § 

Rice V. Grange, 187. 

V. Hogan, 128. 

V. Maxwell, 194. 

V. Ragland, 80. 

V. Rice, 36, 46, 1181a, 1187. 

V. Shealey, 1489. 

V. Stearns, 700. 
Rich V. Errol, 422. 

V. Lambert, 1729. 

V. Starbuck, 99, 145. 

V. Topping, 1217. 

V. Warren, 1339. 
Richards v. Daily, 663, 725. 

V. Darst, 63. 

V. Doe, 1741. 

V. Frankum, 112, 688&. 

V. Globe Bank, 922. 

V. Jefferson, 359. 

V. Market Exch. Bank Co., 1302, 
1312, 1375. 

V. Munroe, 775, 789a. 

V. Richards, 254, 256, 686, 1184. 

V. Waller, 1225, 1227. 

V. Warring, 709. 
Richardson v. Ashby, 833. 

V. Campbell, 1458a. 

V. Carpenter, 50. 

V. Dagget, 255. 

V. Daily, 663. 

V. Denegre, 340e. 

V. Ellett, 83. 

V. Foster, 710. 

V. French, 359. 

V. Kulp, 970. 

V. Lincoln, 63a, 66, 700, 1201. 

V. Mellish, 196. 

V. Merrill, 250. 

V. New Orleans Coffee Co., 3406, 

V. Parker, 1432. 

V. Richardson, 179, 180. 

V, Rickman, 1260. 

V. Schirtz, 850. 

V. Scobee, 751. 

V. Wren, 184. 
Richburg v. Sherwood, 252. 
Richie v. McCoy, 1082. 
Richmond v. Diefendorf, 777a. 

V. Heapy, 354. 

V. West Point, 1530. 
Richmond & D. R. Co. v. Payne, 1740a. 
Richmond, etc., R. Co. v. Snead, 383, 

Richmond Locomotive & Machine 

Works V. Moragne, 300, 305, 418, 

Richmond Mfg. Co. v. Davis, 1387. 
Richter v. Selin, 1140, 1142, 1148. 
Richwine v. Heim, 257. 
Ricker v. Crosby, 694. 

Ricketson v. Wood, 1304. 
Ricketts v. Harvey, 196a, 204. 

V. Pendleton, 721, 959. 
Rickey v. Dameron, 707. 
Rickford v. Ridge, 1590, 1592. 
Ricord v. Bettenham, 221. 
Riddell v. Prichard, 1187. 
Ridden v. Thrall, 24. 
Riddle v. Bank of Montreal, 1566. 

V. Fu-st Nat. Bank, 1707a. 

V. Russell, 1222. 
Rideout v. Bristow, 80, 827. 
Rider ?;. Gulp, 1221. 
Ridgely Nat. Bank v. Patton, 51a, 

Ridgeway v. Day, 1096, 1106. 
Ridgway v. Farmers' Bank, 392, 397. 
Ridley v. Heightower, 7136, 995. 

V. Taylor, 366. 
Riegel v. Cunningham, 726a, 786. 
Rigby, Ex -parte, 1615. 

V. Norwood, 1764. 
Riggan v. Grain, 316. 
Riggin V. CoUier, 11. 
Riggins V. Joseph D. Boyd Mfg. Co., 

Riggs V. Hatch, 1029. 

V. Lindsay, 565, 1450. 

V. Neuenham, 603. 

V. Powell, 1219. 

V. Trees, 854. 

V. Waldo, 713c. 
Riker v. Crosby, 694. 

V. Sprague Mfg. Co., 43. 
Riley v. Cheesman, 326a, 643. 

V. Dickens, 86. 

V. Hampshire County Nat. Bank, 

V. Schawhacker, 803. 
Rindscoff v. Barrett, 56, 1706. 
Ringgold V. Tyson, 1217. 
Ringling v. Kohn, 1486, 1500. 
Ringo V. Trustees, 1682. 
Rio Grande Extension Co. v. Goby, 

Ripley v. Greenleaf, 624, 1328, 1329. 
Ripley Nat. Bank v. Latimer, 1637. 
Risher v. Risher & Crump, 1250. 
Rising V. Teabout, 1200. 
Risley v. Brown, 1298. 

V. Gray, 203. 

V. Howell, 1537. 

V. Phoenix Bank, 1618, 1643, 1644. 

V. Smith, 16a. 
Ristine v. Clements, 196. 
Ritchie v. Bradshaw, 1590. 

V. Deposit & Tr. Co., 1646. 

V. Moore, 694a, 1428, 1429. 
Ritchie County Bank v. Bee, 322. 
Rittenhouse v. Anunerman, 263. 



References are to paragraphs marked § 

Ritter v. Singmaster, 205, 12666, 1274, 

River Plate Bank v. Carr, 946. 
Rivers v. Brown, 81. 
V. Campbell, 89. 
V. Moss, 170. 
V. Thomas, 713d, 715. 
Riverside Bank v. Jones, 793a. 

V. Land Co. 340b, 1572, 1647. 
Riverside Iron Works v. Hall, 1260. 
Rives V. Parmley, 960, 962. 
Rixey v. Pearre, 62, 62a. 
Rizer v. Callen, 1339. 
Roach II. Carr, 849a. 
V. Ostler, 128, 482. 
V. Roanoke Classical Seminary, 80. 
V. Sanborn Land Co., 663, 728. 
Roache v. Woodall, 677, 1354, 1469. 
Roads V. Webb, 41, 55, 62, 717, 737, 

738, 883. 
Roanoke G. & M. Co., v. Watkins, 

7135, 714, 715. 
Roark v. Turner, 767. 
Robarts v. Tucker, 326a, 1571, 1618, 

Robb V. Bailey, 683, 1182. 

V. Letcher, 1198. 

V. Ross County Bank, 392. 
Robbins v. Brooks, 185. 
v. Eaton, 231, 234. 

V. Gibson, 1078. 

V. Pinckard, 1057. 

V. Richardson, 793a. 

V. Swinburne Printing Co., 775, 
Roberts v. Austin, 16a, 19, 312, 1567, 
1638, 1639, 1643. 

V. Bethel, 63, 491, 494. 

V. Bolles, 1496, 1557. 

V. Bradshaw, 1051, 1160. 

V. Bruce, 1343. 

V. Coffin, 1342. 

V. Eden, 790. 

V. Fisher, 737. 

V. Hall, 781. 

V. Hardy, 216. 

V. Hawkins, 1786. 

V. Jacks, 51a. 

V. Lane, 726a, 803, 815. 

V. McGrath, 855. 

V. Mason, 1119. 

V. Masters, 707, 713d. 

V. Parrish, 1181a. 

V. Peake, 41. 

V. Pepple, 366. 

V. Roberts, 196. 

V. Sholes, 193. 

V. Smith, 55. 

V. Snow, 48, 62, 1181a, 1191. 

V. Thompson, 1277a. 

Roberts v. Wood, 855. 

Roberts, Throp & Co. v. Laughlin, 

Robertson v. Allen, 675. 

V. Angle, 1339. 

V. Banks, 262, 271. 

V. Burdekin, 905. 

V. City of Rockford, 1524. 

V. Coleman, 139, 769a, 1663. 

V. Cooper, 197. 

V. Kensington, 697, 698. 

V. Merriam, 203. 

V. Nat. Steamship Co., 1740. 

V. Smith, 1294, 1296. 

V. Steward, 101. 

V. Williams, 189, 790. 
Robins v. Bacon, 16a ^3), 17, 21, 22. 

V. Gibson, 940, 943, 1076. 
Robinson, Ex parte, 314. 

V. Ames, 454, 469, 1076, 1213. 

V. Bank of Darien, 1478, 1693. 

V. Barnett, 1102, 1107, 1352b. 

V. Bartlett, 713a. 

V. Beall, 1682. 

t;. Berryman, 1387. 

V. Bland, 128, 204, 866, 867, 879. 

V. Blen, 598. 

V. Campbell, 748, 834. 

V. Chemical Nat. Bank, 293. 

V. Cheney, 643. 

V. Gardiner, 1681, 1691. 

V. Hamilton, 1030. 

V. Hawks, 1587, 1638. 

V. Kanawha Valley Bank, 301, 

V. Lain, 1781. 

V. Lair, 184. 

V. Law, 123. 

V. Leavitt, 1491a. 

V. Little, 721. 

V. McDowell, 1338, 1340. 

V. Memphis R. Co., 1733. 

•;. Powers, 815, 11926. 

V. Queen, 867. 

V. Read, 740, 1271. 

V. Reed, 1412. 

V. Reynolds, 174a, 803. 

V. Robinson, 183. 

V. St. Louis, 1522. 
V. Taylor, 373. 
V. Wilkinson, 1197. 
r. Yarrow, 290, 537, 538, 539, 
1225, 1364, 1365. 
Robinson's Admrs. v. Allison, 1252. 
Roblee v. Rankin, 800a. 

V. Union Stock Yards Nat. Bank, 
63, 471, 800a, 1332. 
Robson V. Bennett, 992, 1590. 
V. Curlewis, 983. 
V. Early, 1198. 



References are to paragraphs marked § 

Roche V. Crigler, 1713a. 
Rochester Printing Co. v. Loomis, 831c. 
Rochford v. Barrett, 775, 815. 
Rock County Nat. Bank v. Hollister, 
698d, 721, 1181a. 

V. Luman, 392. 
Rock Creek Township v. Strong, 1537. 
Rockefeller v. Ringle, 780. 
Rockfield v. First Nat. Bank, 714, 971. 
Rockhill V. Moore, 722. 
Rockville Nat. Bank v. Citizens' Gas 
Light Co., 386, 389, 394, 831a, 
832, 1500. 

V. Holt, 1322. 
Rockwell V. Hunt, 122. 

V. Wilder, 354, 724a. 
Rocky Mountain Nat. Bank v. McCas- 

kill, 356, 369b. 
Rodabaugh v. Pitkin, 1787. 
Rodecker v. Littauer, 197, 924. 
Roden v. Ryde, 1218. 
Rodes V. Patillo, 170. 
Rodick V. Gandelle, 1645. 
Rodney v. Wilson, 719, 1093. 
Rodocanachi v. Buttrick, 715. 
Rodriguez v. Merriam, 728, 803, 1198. 
Roe V. Bank of Versailles, 81d. 

V. Hallett, 709. 

V. Kiser, 81c. 
Roehner v. Knickerbocker Life Ins. Co., 

Roessle v. Lancaster, 177, 714. 
Roffey V. Greenwell, 46. 
Rogers v. Bachelor, 366, 369. 

V. Bedell, 81c, 157. 

V. Blythe, 196a. 

V. Burlington, 1522, 1523, 1532, 

V. Colt, 688a. 

V. Detroit Sav. Bank, 1204, 1326. 

V. Gibson, 101. 

V. Hackett, 1110, 1162. 

V. Hadley, 193, 770. 

V. Huntingdon Bank, 1708c. 

V. Jewel Belting Co., 386. 

V. Keokuk, 1560, 1562. 

V. Langford, 1119, 1679a. 

V. McGuire, 812. 

V. Mercantile Adjuster Pub. Co., 
183, 202. 

V. Miller, 1484. 

t;. Morton, 177, 777, 816. 

V. Posters, 1382. 

V. Rogers, 161, 209, 211. 

V. Shaw, 1415. 

V. Squires, 265. 

V. Stephens, 942, 971, 986, 1162. 

V. Tapp, 1387. 

V. Walker, 213. 

V. Walsh, 734a. 

Rogers v. Ward, 248. 

V. Ware, 136, 138, 139, 140, 163. 
V. Warner, 1770. 
V. Waters, 186. 
Rogerson v. Hare, 991. 
Roger Williams Nat. Bank w. Groton 

Mfg. Co., 271, 305. 
Roges V. Ware, 136, 138, 139, 140. 
Rogett V. Merrit, 1269. 
Rohan v. Hanson, 1252. 
Rohrbacher v. Aitken, 1966. 
Rohrer v. Morning Star, 1217. 
Roland v. Logan, 254. 
Rolfe V. Wyatt, 1334. 
Rolin V. Stewart, 1638. 
RoUa State Bank v. Pezoldt, 959, 995, 

1005, 1005a 1038, 1050. 
Roller V. McKinney, 1182. 
Rolleston v. Hibbert, 744. 
Rollin V. Stewart, 1642. 
Rolling V. El Paso & S. W. R. Co. 1225. 
Rollins V. Bartlett, 1393. 

V. Bd. of Commissioners, 803. 

V. Chaffee County, 10a. 

V. Gilson, 986. 

V. Lashus, 1188. 
Rolls V. Pearce, 26. 
Rolt V. Watson, 1475. 
Rome V. Cabat, 1522. 
Romero & Bayard v. Newman, 833, 

1227, 1228. 
Romine v. Romine, 1339. 
Rominger v. Keyes, 90. 
Ronald v. Bank of Princeton, 62, 62a. 
Rondot V. Rogers Township, 1537, 

Roney v. Dunleary, 174. 
Rood V. Wright, 241. 
Roof V. Stafford, 229. 
Roosa V. Crist, 663a, 904. 
Roosevelt v. Draper, 1528. 

V. Woodhull, 1066. 
Root V. Franklin, 640. 

V. Merriam, 195a. 

V. New Haven Trust Co., 183, 

V. Taylor, 1432. 
Roquette v. Overman, 898, 908. 
Rosaf. Brotherton, 831c. 

V. Butterfield, 674. 
Roscoe V. Hardy, 1224. 
Rose V. City of Bridgeport, 1489, 1512. 

V. Hurley, 859. 

V. Laffan, 1187, 1189. 

V. Learned, 81. 

V. McCracken, 639, 640, 643. 

V. Munford, 1458a. 

V. San Antonio R. Co., 183. 

V. Sims, 187, 744. 

V. Williams, 1316, 1338. 



References are to paragraphs marked § 

Roselle Park v. Montgomery, 16a. 
Rosenbaum v. Hazard, 1587. 

V. Meridian Nat. Bank, 1251. 
Rosenbaum Bros. v. Levitte, 196, 196a. 
Rosenstein v. Barman, 775. 
Rosenthal v. Martin Bank, 1636. 

V. Parson, 7816. 

V. Rambo, 728, 742. 
Rosher v. Kieman, 990. 
Ross, Ex parte, 1424. 

V. Bedell, 165, 198, 814, 909, 1085. 

V. Doland, 850. 

V. Drinkard, 815. 

V. Espy, 703, 716. 

V. Hurd, 1147, 1147a. 

V. Jones, 1339. 

V. Planters' Bank, 979a. 

V. Skinner, 1266. 

V. Terry, 731, 7315, 732. 

V. Webster 812. 
Rossi t). National Bank, 192, 6695, 698d. 

V. Schawacker, 713a. 
Rossiter v. Loeber, 166, 167. 

V. Rossiter, 281, 306, 308. 
Ross-Meehan-Brake, Shoe Foundry 

Co. V. Pascagoula Ice Co. 748. 
Rosson V. Carroll, 611, 992, 996, 1039, 

Rosville State Bank v. Heslet, 47. 
Roswell Mining Co. v. Hudson, 88. 
Rotan v. Maedgen, 7586, 775, 803. 
Roth V. Colvin, 775. 

V. Donnelly Grocery Co., 145, 
Rothschild v. Corney, 1633, 1634, 1505. 

V. Currie, 908, 911, 920, 936, 970. 

V. Grix, 713a. 

V. Moslaker, 1289. 
Rounds V. Smith, 1626. 
Roundtree v. Baker, 172. 
Rouquette v. Overman, 970a. 
Rouse V. Wooten, 9956, 1302. 
Rouse, Hempstone & Co. v. Sarratt, 

Rouss V. King, 1753. 
Routh V. Robertson, 984. 
Rouvant v. San Antonio Nat. Bank, 

Row V. Dawson, 16a, 23. 
Rowan v. Chenoweth, 64. 

V. Odenheimer, 979a. 
Rowe V. Bowman, 124, 1303, 1398. 

V. Gohlman, 688c, 832. 
V. Putnam, 139. 
V. Tipper, 988, 1044, 1045. 
V. Young, 459, 519, 641, 643, 1381. 
Rowland v. Bigelow, 1746. 

V. Fowler, 758a, 775, 795a. 
V. Rorke, 1763. 
V. Sprinjett, 983. 

Rowland v. Watson, 157. 

Rowley v. Ball, 1478, 1484. 

Rowlinson v. Stone, 265. 

Rowse V. Johnson, 8346. 

Rowi; V. Kyle, 1219. 

Roxborough v. Messic, 831a. 

Roy & Roy v. Northern Pac. Ry. Co., 

Royal V. Lindsay, 13176. 

V. Virginia, 448. 
Royal Ins. Co. v. Davis, 1770a. 
Royce v. Nye, 1197, 1198. 
Royse v. State Nat. Bank, 1398. 
Royster Guano Co. v. Marks, 1227. 
Rubelman v. McNichol, 1191. 
Rubey v. Watson, 1311. 
Rublee v. Davis, 202. 
Rucker v. Dearing, 1245. 

V. Hiller, 971, 1076, 1081. 

V. Wadlington, 263. 
Rudd V. Mathews, 1351. 
Ruddell V. Landers, 728. 

V. Phalor, 849a, 850. 
Rudderow v. Huntington, 193. 
Rude V. Harvey, 357. 
Rudell V. Dillman, 852. 
Rudelle v. Phalor, 852. 
Rudgear v. United States Leather Co., 

Ruff V. Montgomery, 1340. 

V. Webb, 35. 
Ruffin V. Armstrong, 762a. 
Rugby V. Davidson, 611. 
Ruggles V. Patten, 643, 1296. 
Ruiz V. Renald, 550. 
Rulo First Nat. Bank v. Gordon, 506, 

Rumball v. Ball, 1685. 

V. MetropoUtan Bank, 1504, 
Rumley Co. v. Wilcher, 1311, 1312. 
Rumsey v. Briggs, 358a, 360. 

V. Laidley, 1277a. 

V. People's R. Co., 833. 
Rundel v. Keeler, 224. 
Rundell v. Moore, 330. 
Runnion v. Crane, 1418. 
Runyon v. Clark, 1222. 

V. Mountford, 1025. 
Ruohs V. Bank, 673, 1533. 
Rush V. First Nat. Bank, 1278. 

V. Haggard, 102. 

V. Rush, 335. 
Rushforth, Ex parte, 1342. 
Rushton V. Dierk's Lumber Co., 

Ruskin v. Tharpe, 1468a. 
Russ V. Sadler, 703, 704, 793. 
Russell V. Bosworth, 104. 

V. Brown, 1316, 1318. 


References are to paragraphs marked § 

Russell V. Cassidy, 383. 

V. Clarke, 1785a. 

V. Close's Estate, 41. 

V. Drummond, 294. 

V. Folsom, 387. 

V. Hadduck, 775. 

V. Hankey, 1624. 

;;. Kidd, 195a. 

V. Klink, 1777. 

V. LangstafT, 142, 144, 145, 372, 
694, 843, 1037, 1172. 

V. Lee, 224. 

V. McNab, 1376. 

V. Moseley, 1766. 

V. Phillips, 450, 479, 508, 516. 

V. Rood, 203. 

V. Russell, 54. 

V. Swan, 664a, 683, 684. 

V. Whipple, 38. 

V. Wiggin, 550, 551, 561, 897, 
1797a, 1799. 
Russell & Erwin Mfg. Co. v. Carpenter, 

Russell Electric Co. v. Bassett, 179, 

Rust V. Gott, 195a. 
Rutherford v. Mitchell, 1187. 
Ruthland Bank v. Buck, 793a. 
Rutland, etc., R. Co. v. Cole, 1187, 

1188, 1189. 
Ryan v. Bank of Montreal, 1369. 

V. First Nat. Bank, 1398. 

V. Great Northern Ry. Co., 1731. 

V. Holliday, 833, 834. 

V. McKerral, 185. 

V. Paine, 326c. 

V. Sullivan, 81, 163. 

V. West, 1181a. 
Ryhiner v. Feickert, 103, 290, 684. 
Ryland v. Brown, 775, 789. 
Rylee v. Bank of Statham, 62a. 

Sabin «;. Bank of Worcester, 1708e. 

V. Harris, 1787. 
Sackett v. Keller, 797, 861. 

V. Montgomery, 741. 

t;. Palmer, 46. 

V. Spencer, 38. 
Sackley v. Furse, 221. 
Saco Nat. Bank v. Sanborn, 1024, 1032, 

Sacrider v. Brown, 581, 582, 586, 934. 
Safe Deposit & Trust Co. v. Bank, 265. 

V. Wright, 186. 
Saffer v. Lambert, 81d. 
Saffold V. Banks, 268. 
Safford v. Wyckoff, 382, 389, 411, 991. 
Sage c- Burton, 294, 1230, 1623. 

Sage V. Wilcox, 1764. 

Sager v. Tupper, 74. 

SahUen v. Bank, 342. 

St. Amand v. Bank of Commerce, 1636, 

St. Charles Sav. Bank v. Edwards, 776. 
St. Joe & Mineral Mining Co. v. Bank, 

St. John V. Romans, 1587, 1595, 1620. 
V. McConnell, 1217. 
V. Redmond, 297. 
V. Roberts, 997, 1238. 
St. Joseph F. & M. Ins. Co. v. Hauck, 

St. Joseph Township v. Rogers, 1520, 
1523, 1535a, 1537, 1550, 1557, 
St. Louis V. Alexander, 1559. 
St. Louis & San Francisco R. Co. v. 

Hurst, 1739. 
St. Louis & Santa Fe R. Co. v. Adams, 

St. Louis & S. F. R. Co. v. Jameson, 

St. Louis Bank v. Altheimer, 999, 1016. 

V. Harrison, 195a. 
St. Louis, etc., Ins. Co. v. Homer, 81. 
St. Louis, etc., Ry. Co. v. Edwards, 
V. James, 500. 

V. Johnston, 340, 340d, 1621, 1636. 
V. Citizens' Bank of Little Rock, 
1728, 1729a, 1731, 1733. 
St. Louis Nat. Bank v. Flanagan, 793a, 

St Louis P. Ins. Co. v. Goodfellow, 

St. Louis R. Co. V. Camden Bank, 36a. 

V. Perkins, 336. 
St. Louis Roller Mill Co. v. Despatch 

Co., 1730a. 
St. Marie v. Polleys, 1317. 
St. Paul Roller Mill Co. v. Despatch 

Co., 1734b. 
St. Regis Paper Co. v. Tonawanda 

Board & Paper Co., 1604. 
Salander v. Lockwood, 838, 850. 
Salem v. Bank of State of New York, 

Salen v. Bank of State of New York, 

Salinas v. Wright, 41. 
Salisbury v. Bartleson, 640. 
V. First Nat. Bank, 713a. 
V. Renick, 1147, 1149. 
V. Stewart, 62, 62a. 
Salley v. Terrill, 63. 
Salmon Falls Bank v. Leyser, 384, 751, 

Salmons v. Hoyt, 90a. 



References are to paragraphs marked § 

Salomon v. Hopkins, 94, 252, 303, 304, 

Saloy V. Bank, 1503. 
Salter v. Burt, 627, 1578. 
Saltmarsh v. Planters, etc., Bank, 751, 
753, 763. 
V. Tuthill, 983, 1217. 
Saltsman v. N. Y., L. E. & W. R. Co., 

Salt Springs Bank v. Syracuse Sav. Ins., 

Salt Springs Nat. Bank v. Burton, 600, 

Sammon v. Kimball, 334. 
Sammons v. Halloway, 122. 
Sample v. Cochran, 1311. 
Samples v. Samples, 1230. 
Sampson v. People, 1538. 
Samson v. Ward, 199, 824. 
Samstag v. Conley, 62. 
San Antonio v. Lane, 1500, 1513, 1514, 
1523, 1537. 
V. Meharty, 1495a, 1537. 
Sanborn v. Neal, 406. 
Sand V. Edmonds, 448. 
Sanders v. Anderson, 75. 
V. Bacon, 152. 

V. Bagwell, 1383, 1385, 1401. 
V. Blain, 266. 

V. Chartrand, 297, 316, 317. 
V. Gillespie, 723. 
V. Smith, 183. 
V. Vanzeller, 1745a, 1748. 
Sanderson v. Bowes, 519, 642, 645. 
V. Coleman, 533. 
V. Judge, 635, 642, 1021. 
V. Oakey, 1119. 
V. Reinstadler, 1016. 
V. Sanderson, 1140. 
Sandford v. Sandford, 255. 

V. Seaboard Air Line Ry. Co., 
San Diego v. San Diego, etc., R. Co., 

Sands t;." Clark, 1119. 
V. Smith, 894. 
V. Wood, 688c. 
Sanford v. Allen, 1769a. 
V. DiUaway, 1172. 
V. Mickles, 370, 370a, 683. 
V. Norton, 775. 
V. Sanford, 255. 
Sanford Cattle Co. v. Williams, 392a. 
Sanger v. Stimson, 56, 979. 
San Jose Sav. Bank v. Stone, 80. 
Sansome v. Bell, 1771. 
Saratoga County Bank v. Pruyn, 248. 
Sargent v. Appleton, 1306. 

V. Essex Marine R. Co., 1708e. 
V. FrankHn Ins. Co., 1708(i. 

Sarraille v. Calmon, 1227. 
Sarsfield v. Witherly, 6. 
Sasportas v. Jennings, 857. 
Sasscer v. Farmers' Bank, 969. 

V. W^hitley, 1031. 
Sater v. Hunt, 1241. 
Sathre v. Rolfe, 748a. 
Satterlee v, Mathewson, 1565. 
Satterwhite v. Melczer, 1636. 
Saul V. Creditors, 875. 

V. Jones, 519. 

V. Southern Seating, etc., Co., 174, 
185, 408, 769a. 
Saunders v. Bank of Mecklenburg, 185. 

V.Wakefield, 1764. 

V. White, 1689, 1691. 
Saunderson v. Jackson, 74. 

V. Judge, 656, 657, 1049. 

t;. Piper, 86. 

V. Saunderson, 1039, 1129. 
Savage v. Aldren, 697. 

V. Fox, 185. 

t>. Goldsmith, 775, 815. 

V. King, 242, 681. 

V. Merle, 1221. 

V. O'Neill, 891, 891a. 

V. Walshe, 385. 
Savannah & Memphis R. Co. v. Lan- 
caster, 382, 15016. 
Savings Assn. v. Barber, 1200. 
Savings & Loan Soc. v. Burnett, 748, 

1221, 1260. 
Savings Bank v. Atchison, etc., R. Co., 

V. Benton, 393. 

V. Central Market Co., 403, 1221, 
1226, 1266c. 

V. Hughes, 392. 

V. Libby, 834. 

V. McCarthy, 24a. 

V. Nat. Bank, 342, 775. 

V. Newburyport, 10. 

V. Schott, 802, 834, 834a, 8346. 

V. Scott, 197, 198. 

.;. Shaffer, 1411. 

V. Strother, 54, 62, 1789. 

V. Terry, 1339. 

V. Webster, 358a. 
Savings Bank of Kansas v. Nat. Bank 

of Commerce, 108, 197. 
Savings Co. v. New London, 391. 
Sawtelle v. Muncy, 247. 
Sawyer v. Bradford, 1311. 

V. Brownell, 707, 996. 

«. Campbell, 1312, 1322, 1377, 

V. Cleveland Iron Co., 1733a. 

V. Hoovey, 725a. 

V. McCauley, 1198. 
t;. Parker, 124, 125. 



References are to paragraphs marked § 

Sawyer v. Prickett, 834, 834a. 

V. Wiswell, 176, 205, 805. 
Saxton V. Stevenson, 54a. 
Sayers v. First Nat. Bank, 101. 
Sayles v. Cox, 334. 

V. Sims, 1338a. 
Saylor v. Bushong, 1636a. 
Sayre v. Frick, 684, 999a. 

V. Mohney, 203. 

V. Nicholas, 411. 

V. Wheeler, 69. 
Scaife v. Byrd, 65. 

V. Tobin, 1738. 
Scammon v. Adams, 721. 

V. Kimball, 334. 
Scandinavian American Bank v. John- 
son, 769a, 776, 7816, 819. 
Scanland v. Porter, 713a. 
Scanlon v. Wallach, 183, 995. 
Scarborough v. Harris, 1083. 
Scarbrough v. City Nat. Bank, 670, 

972, 1203. 
Scard v. Jackson, 92. 
Scarpellini v. Atcheson, 257. 
Schaeffer v. Fowler, 831a. 
Schaffner v. Erham, 1642. 

V. Kober, 203. 
Schaller v. Chicago & N. W. R. Co., 

Scharf v. Moore, 1290. 
Scheie v. Wagner, 358a. 
Schell City Bank v. Reed, 1343. 
Schenley v. Commonwealth, 1560. 
Schepp V. Carpenter, 83c, 184, 791, 792, 

Scherer & Co. v. Everest, 758, 8316. 
Scheurman v. Monarch Fruit Co., 

Schieber v. Trandt, 1317. 
Schierl V. Baumel, 1149, 1260, 1276. 
Schimmelpennick v. Bayard, 451, 524, 

551, .560, 561, 1799. 
Schindel v. Gates, 1215a. 
Schirm v. Wieman, 196a. 
Schlandecker's Appeal, 1708. 
Schlemmer v. Schendrof, 1482. 
Schlesinger v. Arline, 62. 
V. Gilhooly, 199. 
V. Kelly, 199. 
V. Kurzork, 1604. 
V. Lehmaier, 769a. 
V. Schultz, 612, 969, 1119. 
Schlessman v. Kallenberg, 1343. 
Schley v. Merrit, 713a. 
Schlussel V. Warren, 1317. 
Schmelz v. Rix, 1401. 
Schmidt v. Garfield Nat. Bank, 293, 
V. Limehouse, 1458. 
V. Pegg, 52, 60, 1181a. 

Schmidt v. Schmaelter, 74. 

V. Spencer, 248, 249. 
Schmidt Matting Co. v. Miller, 713a. 
Schmied v. Frank, 1093, 1326. 
Schmittler v. Simon, 418. 
Schmitz V. Gold Mining Co., 38. 
Schmitzler v. Fourth Nat. Bank of 

Wichita, 1316. 
Schmucker v. Sibert, 1215. 
Schmueckle v. Waters, 195a, 156, 197, 

7956, 815. 
Schneider v. Norris, 74. 

V. Schiffman, 712, 713a, 715. 
Schneitman v. Noble, 392. 
Schnewind v. Racket, 1385. 
Schoepfer v. Tommack, 741. 
Schoet V. Houghlin, 769a. 
Schofield V. Bayard, 526, IO680. 
V. Day, 917. 
V. Palmer, 960. 
Schoharie County Nat. Bank v. Bevard, 

107, 643. 
Scholefield v. Eichelbeerge, 1060. 
Scholey v. Ramsbottom, 1235, 1631. 

V. Walsby, 1229. 
Scholfield V. Earl of Londesborough, 

1405, 1407a, 1408. 
SchoUengberg v. Seldenridge, 1301. 
Schollenberger v. Nehf, 715. 
School Directors v. Fogleman, 377, 

School District v. Reeve, 1197. 
V. Sheidley, 63a, 165. 
V. Sippy, 290. 
V. Thompson, 319. 
Schooler v. Tilden, 145. 
School Town of Monticello v. Kendall, 

403, 443a. 
Schooner Freeman v. Buckingham, 

Schorman v. Railroad Co., 1734a. 
Schram v. Werner, 81c, 710, 1338, 1341, 

Schreyer v. Turner Flouring Co., 394. 
Schroeder v. Central Bank, 16366. 
V. Kinney, 1312. 
V. Nielson, 813, 8156. 
V. Seittz, 1219. 
V. Turner, 713a. 
Schryver v. Hawkes, 143. 
Schuchardt v. Hall, 1074. 
Schuler v. Bank, 336. 
Schulte V. Coulthurst, 812. 
Schultheis v. Sellers, 819. 
Schultz V. Astley, 142, 144. 
V. Catlin, 857. 
V. Kosbab, 68. 
V. Noble, 175. 
Schumacher v. Dolan, 415. 
V. Trent, 341. 



References are to paragraphs marked § 

Schumacher v. Wolf, 1227. 

Schuster v. Marden, 725a. 

Schutt V. Evans, 205. 

Schuttler v. King, 1478. 

Schuyler County v. Thomas, 1523a, 

Schuylkill County v. Copely, 847. 
Schwalm v. Mclntyre, 1386. 
Schwartzkopf v. Hill, 175. 
Schwartzman v. Post, 1243. 
Schwarz v. Oppold, 1385. 
Schwarzchild v. Savanah, etc., Ry. Co., 

Schweider v. Lang, 1289a. 
Schwind v. Hall, 812, 1200. 
Scionneaux v. Wagnerpack, 1191. 
Scipio V. Wright, 422, 1532, 1555a. 
Scofield V. Ford, 1409. 
Scollans v. Rollins, 1468a, 15016. 
Scolluns V. Flyn, 195a. 
Scotland Co. v. Hill, 803, 1513. 

V. Thomas, 1523a, 1524. 
Scotland County Nat. Bank v. Hohn, 
273, 665. 

;;. O'Connell, 1405. 
Scott V. Armstrong, 1425. 

V. Baker, 403. 

V. Bankers' Union of the World, 
795c, 1294. 

V. Bevan, 917, 1454. 

V. Calkin, 694. 

V. Colmisnil, 350a. 

V. Commonwealth, 1672. 

V. First Nat. Bank, 724a, 997. 

V. Gilkey, 1245, 1625. 

V. Gillmore, 204. 

V. Goode, 680. 

V. Greer, 1107. 

V. Hall, 1317. 

V. Harris, 1317, 1319. 

V. Hart, 859. 

V. Lifford, 992, 995a, 1290. 

V. Lloyd, 1217. 

V. M'Lellan, 295. 

V. Meeker, 1147, 1482, 1587. 

V. Nat. Bank, 286a. 

V. Ocean Bank, 333, 340, 340&. 

V. Otis, 248. 

V. Perlee, 90, 923. 

V. Scott, 814. 

V. Scruggs, 1312, 1317, 1327, 1334, 

V. Searls, 265. 

V. State Bank, 68a, 855. 

V. Taul, 859, 1336, 1338. 

V. Town of Menasha, 193. 

V. Trents, 1428. 

V. Walker, 1395. 
Scotten V. Randolph, 769a. 
Scovile V. Canfield, 882. 

Scoville V. Landon, 812. 
Scrapelini v. Atcheson, 254. 
Scribner v. Hanke, 183, 1191. 

V. Rutherford, 1790, 1799. 
Scrivens v. Savings Bank, 24a. 
Scroggin v. McClelland, 1634. 
Scruggs V. Gass, 737, 1677. 
Scudder v. Thomas, 205. 

V. Union Nat. Bank, 504, 867. 
Scull V. Edwards, 130, 663. 

V. Mason, 1096. 
Seaboard Nat. Bank v. Bank of Amer- 
ica, 141, 672, 1225, 1356. 

V. Burleigh, 554, 561, 1799. 
Seabury v. Hugerford, 708, 713d, 1099. 
Seacord v. Miller, 1134. 
Sealey v. Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co., 

Searcy v. Vance, 56. 
Searight v. Calkight, 874. 
Searle v. Norton, 1587. 
Searles v. Seipp, 1384. 
Sears v. Brink, 1764. 

V. Daly, 1219. 

V. Lantz, 688c. 

V. Moore, 726, 1218, 1220. 

i;. Wingate, 1729a, 1733. 

V. Wright, 44, 81. W 
Seaton v. Scovill, 995a, 1044. 
Seattle v. L. H. Griffith Realty, etc., 

Co., 68a. 
Seattle Shoe Co. v. Packard, 294, 482, 

Seaver v. Coburn, 403. 

V. Lincoln, 572, 604, 609. 

V. Phelps, 210, 685. 

V. Weston, 1349, 1352a. 
Seay v. Bank of Tennessee, 145. 

V. Fennell, 724a. 

V. Palmer, 890. 
Sebag V. Abithol, 515. 
Sebald v. Citizens' Deposit Bank, 1309. 
Sebree v. Crutchfield, 209. 

V. Door, 653. 
Sebree Deposit Bank v. Moreland, 990, 

1147a, 1148. 
Second Nat. Bank v. Anglin, 62. 

V. Brady, 166. 

V. Gaylord, 1787. 

V. Gibbony, 294. 

V. Howe, 191. 

V. McGuire, 1133. 

V. Miller, 248. 

V. Prewett, 1235a. 

V. Smith, 887, 908, 910, 969. 

V. Smoot, 923. 

;;. Snoqualime Trust Co., 795c, 

V. Walbridge, 1733. 

V. Werner, 824. 



References are to paragraphs marked § 

Second Nat. Bank v. Western Nat. 
Bank, 1608. 

V. Weston, 365, 367, 369a, 371, 
775, 7956. 
Second Nat. Bank of Baltimore v. 

Bank of Alma, 325, 795a, 17346. 
Second Nat. Bank of Pittsburg v. 

Hoffman, 819. 
Secor V. Clark, 857. 
Security Bank v. Bell, 185. 

V. Kingsland, 290, 393, 832a. 

V. Lutgen, 1730, 1734a. 

V. Nat. Bank, 1603, 1661. 
Security Co. of Hartford v. Eyer, 866. 
Security Loan & Trust Co. v. Fields, 

Security Warehousing Co. v. American 
Exch. Nat. Bank, 1266a. 

V. Hand, 1713a. 
Sedalia Nat. Bank v. Economy Steam 

Heating & Elec. Co., 394, 394a. 
Sedgwick v. Lewis, 357. 

V. Sedgwick, 1418. 
Seebright v. Fletcher, 849a. 
Seehorn v. Am. Nat. Bank, 1468a. 
Seeley v. Engell, 201. 

V. Reed, 670. 

V. Seeley-Howe-Le Van, 229. 

V. Wickstrom, 1191, 1192, 1201. 
Seeligson v. Lewis, 195a, 206. 
Segrist v. Crabtree, 1260. 
Seibel v. Vaughan, 1406. 
Seibeneck v. Anchor Sav, Bank, 1312, 

Seieroe v. First Nat. Bank, 156. 
Selby V. Case, 193. 

V. Eden, 642. 

V. McCullough, 1260. 
Seldenridge v. Connable, 83. 
Seldner v. Mt. Jackson, 1109a. 
Selfridge v. Northhamton Bank, 1669. 
Selligson v. Lewis, 205. 
Sells V. Tootle, 741. 
Selser v. Brock, 1314. 
Selz V. Collins, 329, 330. 
Semple v. Detwiler, 1278a. 

V. Turner, 713a. 
Seneca County Bank v. Neass, 644, 

657, 960, 962, 1025. 
Sentance v. Poole, 210. 
Senter v. Continental Bank, 1637. 
Sergeson v. Sealy, 213. 
Serle v. Norton, 85, 1587. 

V. Waterworth, 685. 
SerroU v. Derbyshire R. Co., 1616. 
Serviss v. Washtenaw Circuit Judge, 

Sessions v. Mosely, 24, 1181a. 
Settles V. Moore, 68. 
Setzer v. Deal, 775. 

Seurch v. Miller, 164. 

Seventh Nat. Bank v. Cook, 1636a, 

Seventh Ward Bank v. Hanrick, 1041. 
Sewall V. Boston Water Power Co., 

Sewanee Mining Co. v. McCall, 290, 

Seward v. Derrickson, 1096. 
Seward & Co. v. Miller & Higdon, 

Sewell V. Evans, 1218. 
Sexton V. Barrie, 86. 
Seybel v. Nat. Currency Bank, 441, 

775, 776. 
Seybert v. City of Pittsburg, 1523, 

Seybold v. Nat. Bank, 24, 1181a. 
Seyfert v. Edison, 241, 786. 
Seymour v. Cemetery Assn., 377, 386a, 

V. Continental Life Ins. Co., 1458a. 

V. Farrell, 710, 713a. 

V. Malcom, etc., Lumber Co., 769a. 

V. Mickey, 713c. 

V. Newton, 17346. 

V. Norton, 17346. 
Seymour Opera House Co. v. Thurston, 

Shackleford v. Hooker, 102, 508. 
Shade v. Creviston, 1288. 
Shafer v. Farmers & Merchants Nat. 

Bank, 713c?. 
Shaffer v. Clendennin, 1343. 

V. Hohenschild, 710. 

V. Maddox, 1588. 

V. Rhynders, 1734c. 
Shain v. Goodwin, 815. 

V. Sullivan, 666, 688. 
Shakespear v. Smith, 427. 
Shamburgh v. Cammagere, 635, 1217. 
Shand v. Du Boisson, 16a, 20. 
Shank v. Butsch, 74. 
Shankland v. Corporation of Washing- 
ton, 277. 
Shanklin v. Cooper, 901, 936. 
Shannon v. Hawley, 187. 

V. Langhome, 187. 
Sharp V. Allgood, 855. 

t;. Bailey, 90, 1085. 

V. Bowie, 183. 

V. Emmett, 314. 

V. Garnet, 1341. 

V. Taylor, 200. 
Sharpe v. Bagwell, 1393. 

V. Baker, 94, 1203. 

V. Belhs, 305. 
Sharphawk v. Willis, 1186a. 
Sharpless v. Mayor, 1523. 
Sharrington v. Yates, 257. 



References are to paragraphs marked § 

Shattuck V. Eldridge, 795a. 
Shaver v. Ehle, 112, 1220. 

V. Ocean Mining Co., 400. 

V. Western Union Telegraph Co., 
16a, 508. 
Shaw V. Camp, 46. 

V. Clark, 195a, 803. 

V. Craft, 990. 

V. Denniss, 1556, 1557. 

V. Emery, 252. 

V. Gardner, 1740. 

V. Knox, 703. 

V. McNeill, 1095a, 1147. 

t;. M. E. Society, 79. 

V. Neal, 1060, 1070. 

V. Outwater, 673. 

V. Railroad Co., 775, 1730, 1747a, 

V. Reed, 644, 654, 1144. 

V. Rigby, 1458a. 

V. Smith, 100. 

V. Spencer, 271, 795a, 1708. 

V. Stein, 722. 

V. Stone, 424. 
Shaw & Schooner v. Jacobs, 693. 
Shaw, Kendall & Co. v. Brown, 139. 
Shawmut Nat. Bank v. Manson, 340c, 

Shawnee County v. Carter, 1558, 1563. 
Shaw, Trustee, v. Saranac Horse Nail 

Co., 294. 
Shaylor v. Mix, 1012. 
Sheahan v. Davis, 1343. 
Sheboygan County v. Parker, 1523. 
Shed V. Brett, 572, 592, 979, 991, 1050, 

1051, 1118, 1209, 1212. 
Sheedy v. Streeter, 720a. 
Sheehy v. Mandeville, 1260, 1261, 

1296, 1297, 1299, 1300. 
Sheets v. Peabody, 268. 
Sheets, Admr., v. Russell, 1289. 
Sheffer v. Fleischer, 67. 
Sheffield v. Cleland, 612, 1227. 

V. Inter. Harvesting Mach. Co., 

V. Johnson County Savings Bank, 
688a, 787, 814, 815, 1219. 

V. Larue, 307, 308. 
Shelburne Falls Nat. Bank v. Townsley, 

1003, 1005, 1006, 1014, 1021, 1044, 

Shelby v. Judd, 688c. 
Sheldon v. Benham, 584, 992. 

V. Butler, 1763. 

V. Chapman, 1103. 

V. Heaton, 1211, 1215. 

V. Horton, 1104. 

V. Kendall, 1431. 

V. Parker, 753&. 
Sheldon Canal Co. v. Miller, 1204. 

Shellenbeck v. Studebacker, 358a. 
Shellenberger v. Nourse, 814a, 819. 
Shelton v. Braithwaite, 974, 983, 1026. 

V. Bruce, 41. 

V. Carpenter, 680. 

V. Darling, 413. 

V. Gill, 62. 
Shenandoah Nat. Bank v. Gravatte, 

V. Marsh, 62. 
Shenton v. James, 108. 
Shepard v. Abbott, 271, 513. 

V. Hawley, 999a. 

V. Whetstone, 1414, 1415, 1419. 
Shepard & Morse Lumber Co. v. 

Eldridge, 1362. 
Shepaug Voting Trust Cases, 1708. 
Shepherd v. Evans, 1187. 

V. Graves, 83. 

V. Harrison, 1734, 1734&. 

V. Temple, 202. 
Shepley v. Waterhouse, 1215a. 
Sherer v. Easton Bank, 959, 1165. 
Sheridan v. Mayor, 11926. 
Sheriff v. Wilkes, 489. 
Sherill v. Hopkins, 875. 
Sherlock v. Winneteka, 1497. 
Sherman v. Comstock, 1586. 

V. Ecker, 929, 971. 

V. Gilbert, 749. 

V. Goodwin, 130. 

V. Mclntyre, 71. 

V, Port Huron Engine & Thresher 
Co., 344, 345. 
Sherman County v. Simons, 1537. 
Sherrard v. Lafayette County, 1549. 
Sherrer v. Enterprise Banking Co., 789. 
Sherrington v. Yates, 1184. 
Sherrod v. Dixon, 241. 

V. Rhodes, 1163. 
Sherwood v. Archer, 207. 

V. Barton, 371o. 

V. Moore, 1458a. 

V. Roys, 1181a. 

V. Snow, 357. 

V. Stone, 314, 357, 366. 
Shewell v. Knox, 1785. 
Shields v. Middleton, 568. 
Shinew v. First Nat. Bank, 1352a. 
Shipley v. Carroll, 837. 

V. Reasoner, 789. 
Shipman v. Bank of the State of N. Y. 
139, 802, 1367, 1618. 

V. Cook, 971. 
Shipp V. Stacker, 725a. 
Shipsey v. Bowery Nat. Bank, 1592, 

Shiretzki v. Julius Kessler & Co.. 203. 
Shirk V. Mitchell, 810. 

V. North, 242. 


References are to paragraphs marked § 

Shirley v. Fellows, 1048, 1077. 
V. Howard, 177. 
V. Todd, 1436. 
Shirreff v. Wilks, 366. 
Shirts V. Overjohn, 850, 851. 
Shisler v. Van Dyke, 1352a. 
Shiver w. Johnson, 112. 
Shoe & Leather Nat. Bank v. Doe, 407. 

V. Wood, 873, 879. 
Shoemaker v. Benedict, 1215a. 
V. Goshen Township, 1545. 
V. Mechanics' Bank, 1008. 
Shoemakers Bank v. Street, 56. 
Shook V. Shute, 1789. 
Short V. City of New Orleans, 422, 
V. New Orleans, 428. 
V. Trabue, 880, 899. 
Shortbridge's Case, 1615. 
Shortred v. Cheek, 1766. 
Shotwell V. McKnown, 400. 
Shoulters v. Allen, 210. 
Showell V. Barr, 199a. 
Shreeves v. Allen, 775. 
Shrieve v. Duckman, 985, 1590. 
Shriner v. Keller, 1265. 
Shroeder v. Webster, 1412, 1421. 
Shropshire Union R. & C. Co. v. The 

Queen, 1708/. 
Shuey v. Adair, 740a, 1189. 

V. Holmes, 203. 
Shufeldt V. Gillilan, 742. 
Shugart v. Shugart, 179, 182, 1702. 
Shuler v. Gillette, 1380. 
V. Hummel, 1317a. 
Shulman v. Damico, 68a. 
Shultz V. Payne, 83, 1376. 
Shuly t;. Holmes, 189. 
Shumway v. Reid, 1267. 
Shute V. Hinman, 1612a. 
V. Jones, 812. 

V. Pacific Nat. Bank, 1703. 
V. Robins, 466, 471, 472, 474. 
Shutt Imp. Co. V. Erwin, 479. 
Shuttleworth v. Noyes, 242. 

V. Stevens, 133. 
Shutts?;. Fingar, 1306, 1307, 1311, 1312. 
Sibley v. Am. Exch. Nat. Bank, 664a, 
V. Muskegon Nat. Bank, 713a. 
Sibree v. Tripp, 1289, 1703. 
Sicard v. Whale, 886. 
Sice V. Cunningham, 607, 609, 611, 612, 

Siebenick v. Anchor Sav. Bank, 1317. 
Siegel V. Chicago Tr. & Sav. Bank, 51a, 
V. Oehl, 775. 
Sieger v. Second Nat. Bank, 1147. 
Siegfried v. Ludwig, 373. 

Siegmeister v. Lispenard Realty Co., 

Siemans & Halske Electric Co. v. Ten 

Brock, 205, 1266, 1266a. 
Siffkin V. Walker, 360. 
Sigerson v. Mathews, 1103, 1147, 1149, 

Siglin V. Frost, 203. 
Sigourney v. Lloyd, 698, 698a. 

V. Whetherell, 1328, 1788, 1789. 
Silby V. McCuUough, 1260. 
Sill V. Leslie, 716. 
V. Pate, 795a. 
Sillman v. Fredericksburg, etc., R. Co., 

1498, 1550. 
Simanton v. Vliet, 403, 418. 
Simeon Leland in Bankruptcy, 1487. 
Simmons v. Atkinson & Lampton Co., 

Simmons Estate, In re, 188. 
V. Council, 51a, 769a, 797. 
V. Savings Society, 26. 
V. Taylor, 1585a. 
V. Thompson, 81b. 
Simmons Hardware Co. v. Bank, 1637. 
Simmons Nat. Bank v. Dilley Foundry 

Co., 775, 795c. 
Simms v. Bank of Alma, 753a. 

V. Clark, 1675. 
Simon v. Huot, 800a. 
V. Ingham, 1253. 
V. Jones Estate, 46. 
V. Krinks, 1227. 
V. Mintz, 130. 
Simonds v. Merritt, 803. 
Simons v. Fisher, 392, 815. 
V. Morris, 782, 786. 
V. Steel, 1764. 
Simonson v. Aney, 1470. 
Simpson College v. Tuttle, 180. 
Simpson v. Davis, 1418. 
V. Field, 1298. 
V. Fullen wider, 751. 
V. Garland, 307, 400. 
V. Griffin, 1459. 
V. Hall, 724a, 725, 741. 
V. Hefter, 814a, 917. 
V. Ingham, 1250. 
V. Meneden, 56. 

V. Pacific, etc., Ins. Co., 1590, 1593. 
V. Stackhouse, 1417. 
V. Tumey, 1044, 1045. 
V. Vaughan, 1298. 
V. Waldby, 341. 
V. White, 963. 
Sims V. American Nat. Bank of Ft. 
Smith, 1636. 
V. Bice, 850. 
V. Bond, 1614. 
V. Hammond, 834&. 



References are to paragraphs marked § 

Sims V. Nat. Commercial Bank, 571. 

V. Stillwell, 262. 
Sinclair v. Braggley, 65. 

V. Johnson, 104. 

V. Lynch, 983. 
Singer Mfg. Co. v. Sinners, 814a. 

V. Summers, 184, 832, 1590. 
Singletary v. Goeman, 729. 
Singleton v. McQuerry, 1389. 

V. Townsend, 1215a. 
Sinkler v. Siljan, 775. 
Sinsheimer v. Whitely, 1713a. 
Sioux City Railroad Co. v. First Nat. 

Bank, 1733a. 
Sisson V. Tomlinscn, 1083. 
Sistermans v. Fields, 198, 815. 
Sivils V. Taylor, 74. 
Sizer v. Heacock, 1319. 
Skaaraas v. Finnegan, 68a. 
Skelly V. Bristol Sav. Bank, 1233. 
Skelton v. Dustin, 602, 634, 719, 951. 
Skerrod v. Rhodes, 1163. 
Sketoe V. Ellis, 1426. 
Skidmore v. Clark, 775. 
Skilbeck v. Carbett, 1024, 1054. 
Skilding v. Warren, 789. 
Skillman v. Titus, 1633. 
Skinker v. Butler County, 1497. 
Skinner v. Church, 699, 719. 

V. Raynor, 771. 

V. Somes, 743. 

V. Tinker, 913. 
Skowhegan Bank v. Barker, 1197. 
Ski'ine v. Lewis, 32. 
Skyes v. Giles, 1270. 

V. Lewis, 1431. 
Slack V. Kirk, 704. 

V. Marysville R. Co., 1523, 1524. 
Slade V. Montgomery, 177. 

V. Mutrie, 181, 1227. 
Slagle V. Bank of Valley, 704. 

V. Pow, 1312. 

V. Rust, 704. 
Slate V. Flye, 164. 
Slater v. Church, 1743. 
Slaton V. Fowler, 203. 
Slaughter v. Farland, 962. 
Slawson v. Loring, 241, 303, 410, 413, 

414, 686. 
Slayback v. Jones, 1431. 
Slaymaker v. Gundacker, 1266. 
Slipper V. Stidstone, 1428. 
Sloan V. Campbell, 1281b. 

V. Gibbes, 703, 720a, 1093, 1765. 

V. McCarty, 41. 

V. Union Banking Co., 814, 815. 
Slocomb V. Fayettville, 1522. 
Slocum V. Hooker, 238. 

V. Lizardi, 999, 999a. 

V. Pomeroy, 678, 899, 921. 

Slocumb V. Holmes, 1268. 
Sloman v. Bank of England, 1612. 

V. Cox, 12666, 1411. 
Slotts V. Byers, 824. 
Small V. Clark, 1099. 

V. Clewley, 81a, 164. 

V. Franklin Mining Co., 1623. 

V. Ober, 1295. 

V. Sloan, 1776. 

V. Smith, 790. 
Small's Admr. v. Lumpkin, 222. 
Smalley v. Bistol, 159. 

V. Wright, 130, 741, 1000. 
Smallhouse v. American Nat. Bank, 

Smallwood v. Vernon, 104. 
Smart, Ex -parte, 1343. 
Smead v. Indianapolis R. Co., 383. 

V. Trustees of Union Township, 
1524 1550. 
Smedes v. Bank of Utica, 327, 331, 991. 
Smilie v. Stevens, 45, 1707. 
Smith V. Abbott, 508, 509. 

V. Alesworth, 1209. 

V. Allen, 39. 

V. American Coal Co., 1708/. 

V. Anderson, 867. 

V. Baker, 62. 

V. Bales, 68a. 

V. Bank, 1178. 

V. Bank of Washington, 1212. 

V. Bates Mach. Co., 509. 

V. Bayer, 721, 795a. 

V. Becket, 1172. 

V. Bettger, 1260. 

V. Bibber, 831a. 

V. Black, 1296. 

V. Boehm, 55. 

V. Bond, 240. 

V. Boulton, 983. 

V. Bradley, 670, 700. 

V. Braine, 166, 808, 814, 815, 

V. Brooklyn Sav. Bank, 1711a. 

V. Brooks, 199a. 

V. Brown, 502. 

V. Brunk, 748. 

V. Buchanan, 875. 

V. Caldwell, 12156. 

V. Caro, 611, 669, 717. 

V. Carter, 720a. 

V. Case, 69. 

V. Champion, 925. 

V. Cheshire, 422, 427, 434. 

V. Chester, 533, 1225, 1260, 1360, 

V. Childress, 721. 

V. Chilton, 759a. 

V. Christian, 68a, 69. 

V. Clark, 696. 



References are to paragraphs marked § 

th V. Clark County, 1512a, 1524. 


V. Clopton, 53, 728. 


V. Columbia State Bank, 197. 


V. Columbus, 197. 


V. Corege, 739a. 


V. Cuff, 194. 


V. Curiae, 926, 1147. 


V. Dann, 1755, 1785&. 

V. Dazey, 1384. 


V. Dot^erweich, 68a, 81a. 


V. Duimam, 1393. 


V. Eals, 815. 


V. Eighth Ward Bank, 3266. 


V. Ellis, 43. 

V. Eureka Flour Mills, 382, 383. 


V. Felton, 361. 


V. First Nat. Bank, 286a, 795, 

1312, 1338. 


V. First State Bank of Tyler, 54, 




V. Fisher, 1116. 


V. Foley, 724a. 


V. Foster, 63. 


V. Gardner, 1227. 


V. Gibbs, 654. 


V. Gibson, 294. 


V. Goodrich, 68, 855. 


V. Hanie, 1182. 


V. Hardman, 248. 


V. Harper, 1267, 1311. 


V. Hawkins, 1321. 


V. Hightower, 185, 203. 


V. Hill, 963. 


V. Hiscock, 726a, 803. 


V. Hyde, 1317. 


V. Ide, 1764. 


V. Ijams, 1215. 


V. Immigration Co., 387. 


V. Isaacs, 184. 


V. Jansen, 777a. 


V. Jay, 1311. 


V. Johnson, 290, 671. 

V. Jones, 1587, 1592. 


V. Kendall, 54, 104, 620, 1181a. 


V. Kinney, 164, 174. 


V. Kittridge, 179. 


V. Knox, 855a, 1307. 


V. Landecki, 1230. 


V. Law, 382, 383. 


V. Lawson, 392. 


V. Little, 928, 983, 1043. 


V. Livingston, 775. 


V. Lockridge, 485, 1092. 


V. Lockwood, 1275. 


V. Lord, 85. 


V. Lounsdale, 1133, 1147. 

V. Loyd, 1252. 


V. Lusher, 371a. 


V. McCall, 1316. 


V. McClure, 63, 64, 65, 105, 1483. 


iv. McDonald, 193. 
McLean, 644. 
McLennan, 180. 
McNair, 731, 1358, 1372a, 1499&. 
Mace, 1410a. 
Marland, 53. 
Marsack, 93, 228, 242, 535, 

Mason, 1316, 1340, 1342. 
Mayo, 232, 234. 
Mead, 867, 879. 
Melton, 488. 
Mercer, 1225, 1360, 1371, 1654a, 

Merrill, 703. 
Miller, 452, 971, 1260, 1276, 

1330, 1590, 1623, 1625. 
Missouri Pac. Ry. Co., 1733. 
Moberly, 854. 
Mohr, 815, 819. 
Morrill, 717. 
Mullett, 1009. 
Munch, 795a. 

Muncie Nat. Bank, 62, 62a, 532. 
Myers, 53. 

Nelson, 1191, 1478, 1480, 1643. 
Nevlin, 728. 

New Hartford Waterworks, 205. 
Nightingale, 53. 
Nissen, 506, 1254. 
Ojerhome, 1114, 1134, 1754. 
Owens, 1260. 
Pearson, 1317. 
Peck, 1221. 
Pedley, 253. 
Philbrick, 640, 1180. 
Pickering, 260. 
Pickham, 669, 1092. 
Pitts, 1335. 
Poillon, 1041. 
Popular Loan & Bldg. Assn., 

Rawson, 663a. 
Roach, 449, 454, 1045. 
Rockwell, 1473, 1480. 
Rowland, 1081. 
Sac County, 815. 
Savin, 833. 
Sawyer, 1254. 
Screven, 1251. 
Shaw, 1454. 

Sheldon, 370, 1300a, 1319. 
Silvers, 62. 
Sloan, 358a. 
Smith, 25, 86, 875, 927, 1398, 

Southern Express Co., 185. 
Southern R. Co., 1733a. 
Spaulding, 249. 
SpinoUa, 882, 886. 



References are to paragraphs marked § 

Smith V. State Bank, 189. 

V. Steen, 1125, 1698a. 

V. Strader, 366. 

V. Stranger, 288. 

V. Taylor, 92. 

V. Terry, 1418. 

V. Thompson, 832. 

V. Thurston, 63. 

V. Town of Greenwich, 1516, 1537. 

V. Traders' Nat. Bank, 789. 

V. Tramel, 1352a. 

V. Union Bank, 1585a. 

V. United States, 1312. 

V. Van Blarcom, 41, 

V. Vertue, 509. 

V. Walker, 87, 1478, 1479, 

V. Warren, 1316. 

V. Weld, 1387. 

V. Weston, 365, 

V. White, 1294. 

V. Whiting, 266, 684, 685, 979a, 

V. Willing, 145. 

V. Winter, 1321. 

V. Wood, 1247. 
Smith Bros. v. Flanders, 769a. 
Smither, Matter of, 26. 
Smith Premier Typewriter Co. v. May- 
hew, 196a. 
Smith Sons Gin & Machine Co. v. Bad- 
ham, 62a. 
Smith Tie & Timber Co. v. Weather- 
ford, 1417. 
Smith wick v. Anderson, 1217. 
Smock V. Pierson, 183. 

V. Ripley, 62. 
Smoot V. Judd, 879. 
Smyley v. Head, 1314. 
Smyth V. Scott, 719. 
Snaith v. Mingay, 12, 65, 869. 
Snead v. Barclift, 1233. 

V. Coleman, 262, 263. 
Snee v. Prescott, 698, 1730, 1744. 
Sneed v. Mitchel, 684. 

V. Sabinal Mining & Milling Co., 
1378, 1387. 

V. White, 1311. 

V. Wiester, 1300. 
Snell V. Northside Mill Co., 707. 
Snellgrave v. Bailey, 24. 
Sn-vily v. Ekel, 1782. 
Snevley v. Read, 182. 
Snider v. Mt. Sterling Nat. Bank, 206. 
Snively v. Johnson, 1759. 
Snivley v. Matheson, 358a. 
Snodgrass et al. v. Sweeter, 1654a, 1655. 
Snow V. Goodrich, 411. 

V. Peacock, 772, 1462, 1463. 

V. Perkins, 909, 910, 979a, 980. 
Snyder v. Boviard, 434. 

Snyder v. Corn Exch. Nat. Bank, 141, 

V. Gericke, 230. 

V. Hargus, 193. 

V. Moore, 573. 

V. Otman, 728. 

V. Reno, 731. 

V. Riley, 725a, 784a. 

V. Studbreaker, 93, 

e;. Van Doren, 142, 143, 147, 1388, 

t;, Wiley, 204. 
Snyder & Dull v. Critchfield, 883. 
Soars V. Clyn, 697. 
Society for Savings v. New London, 

389, 1500, 1509. 
Soffe V. Gallager, 1262, 1265. 
Sohn V. Morton, 1326. 
Solarte v. Palmer, 982, 985. 
Solenberger v. Gilbert, 156. 
Solicitors' Co. v. Savage, 1397. 
SoUnger v. Earle, 194. 
SoUenberger v. Stephens, 164, 810. 
Smoloan v. Brodie, 812. 

V. First Nat. Bank of Meridian, 
Solomans v. Bank of England, 822, 

1680, 1683. 
Solomon v. Cohen, 1037. 

V. Turner, 193. 
Solomon Solar Salt Co. v. Barber, 149. 
Solomons v. Bank of England, 285. 

V. Jones, 157. 
Solon V. WiUiamsburg Sav. Bank, 1495, 

Solser V. Brock, 1309. 
Somers v. Losey, 800a. 
Somerville v. Brown, 800a. 
Sondheim v. Gilbert, 195a, 197, 356, 

Sonneman v. Loet, 248. 
Sonnethiel v. Skinner, 50. 
Soper V. Henry County, 1519a. 

V. Peck, 851. 
Soule V. Bonney, 196. 

V. Chase, 1283. 

V. Soule, 1267. 
South, Ex -parte, 16a, 23. 
South & Lane v. People's Nat. Bank, 

663, 729, 812, 1219. 
Southall V. Rigg, 81c, 177. 
Southard v. Arkansas Valley, etc., R. 
Co., 177, 196. 

V. Porter, 725a, 745. 
South Boston Iron Co. v. Brown, 176. 
South Carolina Bank v. Case, 363, 364. 
Southcot V. Watson, 1664. 
South Dakota Cent. R. Co. v. Smith, 

81a, 164, 203. 
Southerland v. Goldsboro, 1535a. 

V. Mead, 793a, 819. 



References are to paragraphs marked § 

Southerland v. St. Lawrence County, 

V. Whitaker, 1309. 
Southern Bank v. Mechanics Saving 

Bank, 1198. 
Southern Hardware & Supply Co. v. 

Lester, 177. 
Southern Life Ins., etc., Co. v. Gray, 

1188, 1189a. 
Southern R. Co. v. Cofer, 81c. 

V. Kinchen & Co., 17336, 1743. 
Southern Sand & Material Co. v. Peo- 
ple's Savings Bank & Trust Co., 

184, 1407. 
Southern Seating & Cabinet Co. v. First 

Nat. Bank, 1643. 
South Mo. Land Co. v. Rhodes, 922. 
South Ottawa v. Perkins, 1520, 1538, 

South St. Paul V. Lanprecht, 1537, 

1539, 1542. 
Southwick V. Ely, 573. 

V. First Nat. Bank, 366. 
Sowell V. Bank of Brewton, 112. 
Sowerby v. Butcher, 300. 
Spadine v. Reed, 568. 
Spalding v. Vandercook, 202. 
Spann v. Balzell, 1048. 
Sparhawk v. Willis, 1186a. 
Sparks v. Coats, 1181a. 

V. Oklahoma Const. Co., 196. 
Spartali v. IBenecke, 1279a. 
Spaulding v. Andrews, 501, 504, 567, 

V. Evans, 103. 

V. Kelly, 357. 

V. Putman, 713a. 
Spear v. Ladd, 394. 

V. Pratt, 497, 4976. 
Spears v. Bond, 55. 

V. Lederberger, 1245. 

V. Thompson, 1326. 
Specht V. Beindorf, 156. 

V. Howard, 80. 
Speck V. Pullman Car Co., 782. 
Spence v. Crockett, 959. 
Spencer v. Alki Point Transp. Co., 787, 
795c, 855a, 1338. 

V. Ballou, 331, 791. 

V. Bank of Salina, 1121. 

V. Blaisdell, 1673a. 

V. Carstardien, 665. 

V. Dearth, 1227. 

V. Halpern, 669a, 688c. 

V. Harvey, 10926, 1104, 1131, 1133, 

V. Mobile R. Co., 1503. 
V. Robinson, 692. 
V. Sloan, 710. 
V. Stockwell, 241. 

Sperlin v. Peninsular Loan & Discount 

Co., 758, 7796. 
Sperry v. Horr, 62, 62a, 123. 

V. Spaulding, 166, 815. 
Spetch V. Bunford, 46. 
Spicer v. State, 1654. 
Spielberger v. Thompson, 1200. 
Spier V. McNaught, 1789. 
Spies V. Gilmore, 1180. 

V. Nat. City Bank, 899. 

V. Newbery, 983. 

V. Rosenstock, 81a, 195a. 
Spiller V. Creditors, 1252. 
Spilter V. James, 90, 144. 
Spinette v. Atlas Steamship Co., 

Spinning v. Sullivan, 741. 
Splitberger v. Kohn, 903. 
Spooner v. Gardiner, 1077. 

V. Hilfish, 246. 

V. Holmes, 776, 1489, 1500. 
Sprague v. Fletcher, 1095a, 1096. 

V. Sprague, 162, 164. 

V. Tyson, 962, 1030. 
Spratt V. Hobhouse, 1687. 
Spreckles v. Bender, 812, 1198, 1229. 
Spreeves v. Allen, 775. 
Spreng v. Juni, II8I0. 
Sprigg V. Bank of Mt. Pleasant, 1332. 

V. Cuny, 576, 1198. 
Spring V. George, 1311. 

V. Lovett, 81. 
Spring Brook Chemical Co. v. Dunn, 

Springfield Bank v. Merrick, 1410a. 
Springfield M. & F. Ins. Co. v. Peck, 

1637, 1703. 
Springs V. McCoy, 189, 1343. 
Springs & Co. v. Carpenter, 195a. 
Sprinkill v. Martin, 1250. 
Sprinkle v. Taylor, 789. 
Sproat V. Mathews, 504, 510, 549. 
Spurgeon v. Smiths, 1310. 

V. Swain, 496. 
Spurgin v. McPheeters, 110, 174, 174a, 

Spurlock V. Union Bank, 1147, 1149. 
Spyker v. Spence, 395. 
Staats V. Howlett, 361. 
Stack V. Beach, 719. 
Stacy V. Baker, 895. 

V. Dane County Bank, 343. 

V. Kemp, 69. 
Stadler v. First Nat. Bank, 106, 107. 
Staff V. First Nat. Bank, 1227. 
Stafford v. Bacon, 182. 
V. Fargo, 725a. 
V. Rice, 1217. 
V. Yates, 987. 
Stahl V. Berger, 1401. 



References are to paragraphs marked § 

Stainback v. Bank of Virginia, 280, 
282, 283, 457, 588, 855, 964, 
969, 1046. 

V. Junk Bros., 394. 

V. Read, 276, 280. 
Stalker v. McDonald, 831a, 831c. 
Staltemeier v. Barrett, 1227. 
Stam V. Kerr, 1260, 1262. 
Stamper v. Gay, 1181a. 
Stanard v. Sampson, 196a. 
Standage v. Creighton, 1109&, 1158, 

Standard Cement Co. v. Windham Nat. 

Bank, 392a, 394, 789, 812. 
Standard Milling Co. v. White Line Co., 

1738, 1740a, 1741. 
Standard Oil Co. v. Snowden, 1272, 

Standard Sewing Mach. Co. v. Smith, 

960, 972, 987, 1038, 1044. 
Standard Wagon Co. v. D. P. Drew & 

Co., 357, 366. 
Standfield v. State, 1338. 
Standifer v. Hamill, 1538. 
Stanford v. Horwitz, 186. 

V. Pruet, 868. 
Stanford Compress Co. v. Farmers' & 

Merchants' Nat. Bank, 1713a. 
Staninger v. Tabor, 1643. 
Stanley v. Davis, 144. 

V. McEh-ath, 972, 1260. 

V. Penny, 1181a. 
Stanton v. A. & C. R. Co., 50a, 1491a. 

V. Blossom, 987, 988, 990, 992, 
1075, 1212. 
Stan wood v. Stanwood, 257, 1184. 
Staples V. Bedford, etc., Bank, 74. 

V. Franklin Bank, 1209, 1671. 

!;. Nott, 868, 879, 895, 919. 

V. O'Kines, 1075, 1172. 
Stapleton v. Louisville Banking Co., 62, 

Stapylton v. Cie des Phosphates de 
France, 1622. 

V. Taegue, 174. 
Star Compress & Warehouse Co. v. 

Meridian Cotton Co., 1713a. 
Starin v. Town of Genoa, 1520, 1523, 

1532, 1533, 1552, 1555. 
Star Ins. Co. v. Bank, 1356. 
Stark V. Alford, 176, 1181a. 

V. Cheeseman, 128. 

V. Olsen, 62. 
Starke v. Alford, 1206. 

V. Dicks, 193. 
Star Mills v. Bailey, 393, 394a. 
Star Pad Co. v. Greenwood, 203. 
Starr v. Metcalf, 1383. 

V. Miliken, 1310. 

V. Richmond, 1252. 

Starrett v. Burkhalter, 1318. 
Start V. Tupper, 1587, 1596. 
Star Wagon Co. v. Swezey, 1109o, 1326, 

State t;. Allen, 7135, 1345. 

V. Bank of Missouri, 440. 

V. Bierbauer, 1344. 

V. Boies, 443, 1189a. 

V. Cardozo, 442. 

V. Carragin, 1345. 

V. Cilley, 1386. 

V. Cook, 199a. 

V. Corning State Savings Bank, 
81a, 670, 776. 

V. Crawford, 1567. 

V. Delafield, 441, 442, 444. 

V. Dubuclet, 438. 

V. Dunn, 1346. 

V. Farrell, 1345. 

V. Fitzpatrick, 823. 

V. Givens, 1345. 

V. Glover, 422. 

V. Greene County, 1523, 1524. 

V. Hammelsy, 1566. 

V. Hardware Co., 177, 393. 

V. Hawes, 422. 

V. Henzell, 1714. 

V. Hinton, 693. 

V. Hodges, 290, 292, 1350. 

V. Huff, 427. 

V. Humphreys, 1346. 

V. Jahrans, 2716. 

V. Little Rock, etc., R. Co., 1551. 

V. Loomis, 1714. 

V. McClellan, 741. 

V. McCormick, 1569. 

V. Madison, 1522, 1530. 

V. Midland State Bank, 1612a. 

V. Mitton, 1395. 

V. Nelson County, 1522. 

V. Patterson, 1345. 

V. Peck, 856. 

V. Polk, 1387. 

V. Potter, 856. 

V. Saline County, 1535. 

V. Samuels, 1349. 

V. Scougal, 1668. 

V. Schwartz, 86a. 

V. Stebbins, 573, 664a, 741. 

V. Stratton, 150, 1395. 

V. Sullivan County, 1524. 

V. Sutterfield, 1535a. 

V. Taylor, 62, 1345. 

t;. Town of Clark, 1524. 

V. Trustees of Union Township, 

V. Turner, 1350. 

t;. Van Home, 1545, 1548. 

V. Wapello County, 1523, 1560. 

V. Warren, 1345. 



References are to paragraphs marked 

State u. Webster, 1345. 

V. Wenkelmeier, 1535a. 

t;. Wichita County, 800a. 

V. Williams, 1344. 

V. Wilson, 204. 
State ex rel. v. Adams County, 1522, 
State ex rel. Banking Co. v. Edmunds, 

State ex rel. Parks v. Hughes, 1090, 

State Bank v. Ayers, 1034. 

V. Bank of Capitol, 331. 

V. Burton-Gardner Co., 156, 1769. 

V. Coquillard, 767. 

V. Evans, 856, 

V. Fearing, 672, 1356. 

V. Forsyth, 174. 

V. Hayes, 9. 

V. Hennen, 1016. 

V. Hurd, 639. 

V. J. Blakey & Co., 789a. 

V. Kahn, 1236. 

V. Kain, 392, 

V. McCabe, 1147. 

V. McCoy, 214, 

V. Napier, 656, 657. 

V. Rhoads, 1217. 

V. Reilly, 1612a, 

V. Rowley, 1181a. 

V. Slaughter, 999a. 

V. Van Horn, 1685. 

V. Weiss, 500. 

V. Wheeler, 392. 
State Bank & Trust Co. v. Evans, 

State Bank of Beaver County v. Brad- 
street, 505. 
State Bank of Chicago v. First Nat, 
Bank of Omaha, 1361, 

V. Holland, 197, 831a. 
State Bank of Fillmore v. Hayes, 187. 
State Bank of Fox Lake v. Citizens' 

Nat. Bank of King City, 560. 
State Bank of Gothenburg v. Carroll, 

1587, 1596. 
State Bank of Greentown v. Lawrence, 

198, 775. 
State Bank of Halstad v. Bilstad, 831a, 
State Bank of Indiana v. Cook, 156, 
814, 815. 

V. Gates, 193, 203, 

V. Mentzer, 156, 193, 802, 
State Bank of Iowa Falls v. American 
Hardwood Lumber Co., 1457, 

V. Brown, 193, 
State Bank of Lock Haven v. Smith, 

187, 1311. 
State Bank of Moore v. Forsyth, 185. 
State Bank of St. Johns v. McCabe, 

3266, 1050, 1152. 

State Bank of St. Louis v. Bartle, 1103, 

State Bank of Tabor v. Kelly, 322, 
State Capitol Bank v. Thompson, 69, 

State Ins. Bank v. Young, 1799. 
State Loan & Investment Co. v. Coch- 
ran, 1326, 
State Nat. Bank v. Bennett, 199a. 

V. Bryant & Mathers, 1713. 

V. Chicago, etc., Ry. Co., 1740a. 

V. Cudahy Packing Co., 10. 

V. Flathers, 769a. 

V. Haylen, 694, 1781, 

«;. J. J, Hyatt & Co., 326. 

V. Newton Nat. Bank, 392. 

V. Reilly, 1612a. 

V. Smith, 248. 

V. State Nat. Bank, 341. 
Staten Island R. Co., Matter of, 1626. 
State of New York Nat. Bank v. Ken- 
nedy, 262, 594, 606. 
State Sav. Assn. v. Boatman's Sav. 
Bank, 3346, 1621, 1637. 

V. Hunt, 824. 
State Sav. Bank v. Baker, 669, 1303, 

V. Shaffer, 1384, 1413. 
State Solicitors' Co. v. Savage, 1397. 
State Trust Co. v. Owen Paper Co., 81c, 
Staunton v. Smith, 143. 
Staven v. Missimer, 1316. 
Stavenow v. Kenefick, 358a. 
Staylor v. Williams, 640, 1180. 
Stayner v. Joice, 1376. 
Steadman v. Duhamel, 14. 

V. Gooch, 1019, 1272. 
Steamboat Charlotte v. Hammond, 

1260, 1267, 1282, 
Steamship Co, v. Heron, 1708d, 
Stearns v. Burnham, 883. 
Stebbing v. Spicer, 100. 
Stebbins v. Phoenix Ins. Co., 1708e, 

V. Union Pac. R. Co., 50, 104. 
Stedman v. Rochester Loan & Banking 

Co., 769a. 
Steel V. Davis Co., 430. 

V. Steel, 1433. 
Steele v. Curie, 885. 

V. Johnson, 1316, 1326. 

V. McDowell, 263. 

V. McKinlay, 143a, 485, 4976, 504, 

V. Soule, 1215a. 
Steen v. Stretch, 7.53, 
Steer v. Dow, 800a. 
Steger v. Jackson, 1266, 1325. 
Stein V. Empire Trust Co., 1663. 

V. Kaun, 835a. 

V. Mobile, 1522, 1523. 



References are to paragraphs marked § 

Stein V. Yglesias, 724, 725, 726. 
Steinbeck v. Treasurer, etc., 427. 
Steine v. Franklin County, 1564. 
Steiner v. Mutual Alliance Trust Co., 

Steiner & Lobman v. Jeffries, 571, 1250. 

V. Steiner Land & Lumber Co., 
Steines v. Franklin County, 1536a, 

1539, 1548, 1551, 1559. 
Steinhart v. Nat. Bank, 1221, 1260. 
Steinman v. Magnus, 1331. 
Steinweg v. Erie R. Co., 1732, 1740a. 
Steinwender v. The Aspasia, 1741. 
Steman v. Harrison, 550, 551. 
Stephens v. Board of Education, 366. 

V. Davis, 1409. 

V. Elver, 1411. 

V. Graham, 1376. 

V. Gregg, 895. 

V. Johnson, 59. 

V. McLachin, 358a. 

V. Monongahela Nat. Bank, 189, 
790, 1335a. 

V. Spiers, 1966. 

V. Thompson, 1295. 
Stephenson v. Clayton, 859. 

ii. Dickson, 1041. 

V. Primrose, 1018. 

v. Richards, 1227. 
Sterling v. Fleming, 1221. 

V. Marietta, etc., Co., 393, 1324, 
1326, 1328. 
Sterling Wrench Co. v. Amstutz, 1288, 

Stern v. Germania Nat. Bank, 725a. 
Sternbach v. Friedman, 1343. 
Sternenberg v. Morgan, 365. 
Sterry v. Robinson, 930. 
Stettheim v. Myer, 831c. 
Steuben County Bank v. Alberger, 365. 
Steven v. Lord, 158. 
Stevens, In re, 532, 534, 1266. 

V. Androscoggin Water Power Co., 

V. Beals, 254, 681. 

V. Blunt, 43. 

V. Boston, etc., R. Co., 1732, 1737. 

V. Campbell, 832. 

V. Chadwick, 1281, 1281&. 

V. Graham, 1384, 1386, 1401. 

V. Hannan, 688c, 725a, 1238, 1241, 

V. Lynch, 1148, 1158, 1161, 1321. 

V. Oakes, 1312. 

V. Park, 1587. 

V. Parsons, 713a. 

V. Stevens, 24. 

V. Strong, 139. 

V. Taylor, 1227. 

Stevenson v. Bank, 3406. 

V. O'Neil, 700, 797. 

V. Short, 1221. 

V. Unkefer, 766. 

V. Woodhull, 1230. 
Stewart v. Ahrenfeldt, 1966. 

V. Allison, 587. 

V. Bramhall, 674. 

V. Commonwealth Nat. Bank, 769a, 
867, 891. 

V. Earl of Galloway, 188. 

V. Eden, 588, 640, 1001, 1025, 
1029a, 1049, 1310. 1322. 

V. Ellice, 920. 

V. Foullarton, 46. 

V. Givens, 824. 

V. Gould, 384. 

V. Hidden, 1285. 

V. Hutchinson, 195a. 

V. Insurance Co., 1714. 

V. Jenkins, 249. 

V. Kennett, 988, 990. 

V. Lansing, 1512a. 

V. Lathrop Mfg. Co., 751. 

V. Life Ins. Co., 1259. 

V. Lispenard, 211. 

V. Lord Kirkwall, 247. 

V. Salamon, 87. 

V. Smith, 728, 1587, 1589, 1652. 

V. State, 1664. 

V. Virginia, 448. 
Stewart & Co. v. Andes, 775, 815. 
Stickney v. Mohler, 187. 

V. Moore, 1513. 
Stiles V. Eastman, 1335a. 

V. Inman, 962. 

V. Vanderwater, 80. 
Stillwell V. Aaron, 1338. 

V. Patton, 1419. 
Stilwell V. Craig, 47. 
Stimson v. Whitney, 365, 368, 3696, 

Stinson v. Lee, 305. 

V. Sachs, 1187. 
Stitzel V. Miller, 47, 1181a. 
Stitzer v. Whittaker, 184. 
Stivers v. Prentice, 590, 635. 
Stix V. Mathews, 879, 995a, 1045. 
Stocken v. Collin, 983, 1052. 
Stockman v. Parr, 978. 
Stocks V. Scott, 201. 
Stockton Bros. v. Reed, 186. 
Stockton Sav. & Loan Society v. 

Giddings, 203, 782. 
Stockwell V. Bramble, 490, 491. 
Stockyards Nat. Bank v. Smith, 1372. 
Stoddard v. Kimball, 757, 790, 831a, 

V. Lyon, 1219. 

V. Penniman, 716. 



References are to paragraphs marked § 

Stoddard Bros. Lumber Co., In re, 360, 

Stoessiger v. S. E. R. Co., 92. 
Stofflet V. Strome, 384. 
Stokes V. Anderson, 67. 

V. Lewis, 182. 
Stoll V. Sheldon, 1181a. 
Stollenwerck v. Thacher, 1734&. 
Stoller V. Coates, 336. 
Stone V. Bishop, 24b. 

V. Chamberlaine, 370. 

V. Clough, 1227. 

V. Dean, 800a. 

V. Elliott, 800a. 

V. Gray, 1480. 

V. Hammell, 1339, 1342. 

V. Marsh, 1612. 

V. Metcalf, 112, 153. 

V. Peake, 203. 

V. Smith, 207. 

V. Talbot, 1252. 
Stone's River Nat. Bank v. Walter, 

Stoneman v. Pyle, 62. 
Stoner v. Ellis, 1418. 

V. Zachery, 849a. 
Stoney v. American Life Ins. Co., 389. 
Storall V. Border Grange Bank, 703. 
Storer v. Logan, 532, 550, 551, 554, 561. 
Storey v. Kerr, 1228. 
Storm V. Sterling, 101. 
Storr V. Wakefield, 62. 
Storts V. George, 1437. 
Story V. Atkins, 162. 

V. Dane Comity Bank, 341, 

V. Lamb, 43. 

V. McKay, 898. 
Stothart v. Parker, 611, 1172. 
Stotsenburg v. Fordice, 1226. 
Stott V. Alexander, 1035. 

V. Fairlamb, 184. 
Stotts City Bank v. T. A. Miller Lum- 
ber Co., 289, 386. 
Stouffer V. Curtis, 65, 386, 

V. Fletcher, 815. 

V. Stoy, 812. 
Stough V. Healy, 560, 

V. Ogden, 1421a. 

V. Ponca Mills Co., 796. 
Stout V. Ashton, 1479. 

V. Benoist, 1361, 1700, 

V. Cloud, 1404, 
Stoutenburg v. Lybrand, 196, 
Stoutimore v. Clark, 93. 
Stovall V. Border Grange Bank, 1332. 
Stover V. Hamilton, 88. 
Stow V. Yarwood, 1423. 
Stowell V. Greenwich Ins. Co., 80. 

V. Raymond, 713a, 713c. 
Stoy V. Bledsoe, 156, 203, 725o. 

Stoyell V. Stoyell, 80. 
Strachan v. Muxton, 79. 
Straker v. Graham, 466, 474, 612. 
Strang v. Wilson, 1217. 
Strange v. Price, 982, 983. 

V. Wigney, 772, 1463. 
Stratton v. Allen, 382. 

V. McMakin, 205. 
Straughan v. Fairchild, 831a. 
Strauss v. Hensey, 731, 1226. 

V. United Telegraph Co., 1500. 
Strawberry Point Bank v. Lee, 62, 

Strawbridge v. Robinson, 12, 13. 
Streeter v. Poor, 284. 
Streissguth v. Kroll, 63, 68a. 
Strevell v. Jones, 188. 
Strieker v. Tinkham, 879. 
Strickland v. Henry, 752. 

V. Holbrook, 86. 

V. National Salt Co., 43, 48, 

V. Parlin & Orendorf Co., 193. 

V. Raihoad Co., 1523. 

V. Vance, 248, 
Strickland & Co. v. Lesense & Ladd, 

Stringer v. Adams, 63. 
Stringfield v. Vivian, 1276. 
Stroh V. Hickman, 296. 
Strohecker v. Cohen, 568. 
Strong V. Foster, 1334, 1337. 

V. Hart, 1271. 

i;. Jackson, 8346, 835. 

V. Straus, 271. 
Stroud V. Marshall, 209. 
Stroughton v. Chu Fong, 68a. 
Struthers v. Kendall, 832, 1399. 
Stuart V. Stonebraker, 1230. 

V. West, 800a. 
Stubbs V. Colt, 868. 

V. Goodall, 719. 
Stuber v. Schack, 1317a. 
Stuckkert v. Anderson, 654a. 
Studenbaker v. Maimfacturing Co., 

V. Langson, 812. 
Studenmire v. Ware, 185. 
Stults V. Silva, 45a. 
Stump V. Napier, 1217. 
Sturdevant Bank v. Peterman, 1260. 

V. Hull, 80, 403. 

V. Memphis Nat. Bank, 922, 923. 
Sturdy v. Henderson, 626, 1671. 
Sturgeon Sav. Bank v. Riggs, 1250, 
Sturges V. Detroit, 1740a. 

V. Keith, 286. 
Sturgis V. Baker, 1223. 

V. Bank of Circleville, 392. 

V. Crowninshield, 874. 



References are to paragraphs marked § 

Sturgis V. Derrick, 1115. 

V. Fourth Nat, Bank, 504. 
Sturtevant v. City of Alton, 1522. 

V. Ford, 725a, 726, 786. 

V. Hall, 402. 

V. Jaques, 271. 

;;. Liberty, 435. 

V. Orser, 1730a. 
Sturz V. Fisher, 1272. 
Stutts V. Strayer, 156, 1309, 1312, 

1373, 1375. 
Styles V. Wardle, 83. 
Sublette v. Brewington, 163, 664a. 
Suckley v. Furse, 1328. 
Sudler v. Collins, 1378. 
Suero V. Rhodes, 1555. 
Sufeldt V. Gillian, 742. 
Suffell V. Bank of England, 1400. 
Suffolk Bank v. Lincoln Bank, 1685, 

1686, 1689. 
Suffolk Sav. Bank v. Boston, 803, 1503. 
Suiter v. National Bank, 751, 815. 
Sullivan v. Bonsteel, 196. 

V. Collins, 1966. 

V. Deadman, 962, 968, 1084. 

V. Morrow, 1311. 

V. Rudisill, 1387, 1411. 

V. Sullivan, 356, 357, 203, 1339. 
Sully V. Campbell, 1294, 1296. 

V. Childress, 1317&. 
Sulzbacher v. Bank of Charleston, 1118. 
Summerhill v. Tappo, 1335. 
Summers v. Barrett, 1769. 

V. Mills, 917. 
Sumner v. Bowen, 968. 

V. Summers, 196a. 
Sumrell v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 

Sunderland v. Bell, 203. 
Supervisors v. Randolph, 1560. 

V. Schenck, 316, 317, 319, 386, 389, 
391, 1500, 1523, 1537, 1543, 
1545, 1546. 
Supply Ditch Co. v. Elliott, 1708. 
Suse, In re, 1343. 

V. Pompe, 669. 
Susong V. Williams, 127. 
Siisquehanna Bank v. Evans, 717. 
Susquehanna Valley Bank v. Loomis, 

6696, 1113b. 
Sussex Bank v. Baldwin, 572, 636, 637, 

639, 992, 1039, 1106. 
Sutch's Estate, In re, 188. 
Sutcliffe V. Humphreys, 1235. 

V. McDowell, 1079, 1081. 
Sutliff V. Atwood, 1260. 
Sutton V. Baldwin, 1623. 

V. Beckwith, 166, 859. 

V. Toomer, 619, 1385. 

V. Warren, 254. 

Sutro V. Dunn, 1550, 

V. Petitt, 1555. 

V. Rhodes, 734a, 1550, 15556. 
Suydam v. Westfall, 95, 1236. 
Swall V. Clarke, 769a. 
Swampscott Machine Co. v. Rice, 1054. 
Swan V. Craig, 157. 

V. Hodges, 1130. 

V. Nesmith, 314. 

V. North British Australasian Co,, 

V. Steel, 356, 
Swanke v. Herdemann, 68a, 
Swannell v. Watson, 850. 
Swansey v. Breck, 513, 
Swanzey v. Parker, 731. 
Swart ley v. Oak Leaf Creamery Co,, 

Swarts V. Cohens, 418. 
Swartwout v. Payne, 205, 751. 
Swartz V. Redfield, 996. 
Swasey v. Vanderheyden, 225. 
Swayze v. Britton, 929, 960, 987, 991. 
Swearingen v. Tyler, 247, 1337. 
Sweat v. Hall, 1184. 
Swedish American Nat. Bank v. Chi- 
cago, B. & Q. Ry. Co., 1733. 
Sweeney v. Easter, 336, 698d, 17346. 

V. Thickston, 61. 
Sweet V. Carver County, 428, 432. 

V. Chapman, 751, 752, 758a. 

V. James, 1282, 

V. McAllister, 703, 

V. Powers, 1115, 

V. Swift, 995. 

V. Titus, 1623. 

V. Woodin, 713a, 1115. 
Sweeting v. Halse, 549. 

V. Fowler, 100. 
Sweetser v. Jordon, 995. 
Sweetzer v. French, 86, 86a, 366. 
Sweitzer v. Banking Co., 1417. 
Swem V. Newell, 1341. 
Swenson v. Stoltz, 744, 1763. 
Swet V. Hall, 241. 
Swetland v. Creigh, 56. 
Swift V. Smith, 775, 788. 

V. Stevens, 1470, 1478. 

V. Tyson, 10, 174a, 183a, 184, 775, 
829a, 831a, 832, 1503, 1800. 

V. Whitney, 56. 
Swilley v. Lyon, 95. 
Swing V. Cider and Vinegar Co., 195, 
Swinney v. Edwards, 182, 
Swinyard v. Bowles, 1176, 1262, 1271. 
Swire v. Redman, 1312, 1337, 
Swope V. Boone County Deposit Bank, 
1092, 1326, 

t;. Leffingwell, 1221. 

V. Missouri Trust Co., 203. 



References are to paragraphs marked § 

Swope V. Ross, 480, 501. 
Sydnor v. Boyd, 203. 
Sykes v. Citizens' Nat. Bank of Des 
Moines, 879. 

V. Giles, 1270. 

V. Kruse, 971, 1181a. 

V. Lewis, 1431. 
Sykles v. Bollman, 17346. 
Sylvester v. Crapo, 612, 783, 1220. 

V. Crohan, 9, 879, 908. 

V. Downer, 710, 713a. 

V. Staples, 108. 
Sylvester Bleckley Co. v. Alewine, 62, 

709, 713, 713a. 
Syme v. Brown, 703, 7136. 
Symley v. Head, 1314. 
Symonds v. Parminter, 1205. 

V. Riley, 769a, 803, 1651. 
Syracuse Bank v. Davis, 1565. 
Syracuse, etc., Co. v. Rollins, 1537. 
Syracuse, etc., R. Co. v. Collins, 1260, 

1587, 1588, 1590, 1591. 
Syre v. Reynolds, 1418. 

Taber v. Cannon, 294. 

V. Perrott, 341. 
Tabor v. Merchants Nat. Bank, 814, 
832, 854, 855. 

V. Miles, 713a. 
Tacoma v. Ger. Am. Bank, 1603. 
Tacoma Mill Co. v. Sherwood, 719. 
Taft V. Boyd, 1260, 12666. 

V. Brewster, 307. 

V. Church, 833. 

V. Myerscongh, 193, 203. 

V. Pittsford, 422. 

V. Quinsigamond Nat. Bank, 340c. 

V. Sergeant, 235. 
Taft's Case, 1345. 
Taggart v. First Nat. Bank, 1617a. 
Tailer v. Murphy Furnishing Co., 1103. 
Talbot V. Bank of Rochester, 1364, 

V. Dent, 1523. 

V. First Nat. Bank, 754. 

V. Gay, 1787, 1788. 

V. Nat. Bank, 1118, 1226. 
Talbott V. Hedge, 1219. 

V. Heinz, 156. 
Tallahassee Man. Co., In re, 812. 
Talleyrand v. Boulanger, 886, 907. 
Talmage v. Millikin, 365, 790. 
Tamlyn v. Peterson, 769a, 815. 
Tancil v. Seaton, 1672, 1674. 
Taney County Bank v. Bray, 1203. 
Tannant v. Rocky Mountain Nat. 

Bank, 298. 
Tanner v. Christian, 298. 

Tanner v. Guide, 1303, 1305. 
Tanners & Merchants' Bank v. Ger- 

mania Life Ins. Co., 389. 
Tanners' Nat. Bank v. Lacs 149. 
Tansey v. Peterson, 560. 
Tapia v. Baggett, 1181a. 
Tapley v. Herman, 164. 

V. Marstens, 1623. 
Tappan v. Ely, 152. 
Tarbell v. Sturtevant, 1192. 
Tarbox v. Childs, 1623. 

V. Gorman, 1200. 
Tardy v. Boyd, 205, 1064, 1070, 1147, 

Tarin v. Morris, 1235. 
Tarleton v. Allhusen, 1284. 

V. Southern Bank, 218. 
Tarver v. Evansville Furniture Co., 

V. Nance, 1074. 
Tash V. Adams, 391. 
Tassel v. Cooper, 1642. 

V. Lewis, 616, 627, 743, 1327. 
Tassey v. Church, 513. 
Tate V. Hilbert, 26, 16186. 

V. Sullivan, 963. 
Tatlock V. Harris, 23, 136, 137, 747. 
Tatum V. Kelly, 200. 

V. Morgan, 1316, 1317a. 
Taunton Bank v. Richardson, 1048, 

Taup V. Drew, 1245. 
Tausig, In re, 1338. 
Tayloe v. Sandiford, 1251. 
Taylor v. Am. Freehold Co., 248, 922. 

V. American Nat. Bank of Pen- 
sacola, 47, 776. 

V. Bank of Illinois, 954. 

V. Beck, 807, 1217. 

V. Binney, 1782. 

V. Bowles, 769a. 

V. Breden, 612. 

V. Briggs, 740, 1271. 

V. Bruce, 191, 752, 762a. 

V. Burgess, 1334. 

V. Craig, 854. 

V. Cribb, 769a. 

V. Croker, 92, 227, 228, 535, 536, 

V. Curry, 797. 

V. Dansby, 238. 

V. Davis, 271. 

V. Dobbins, 74. 

V. Drake, 569. 

V. French, 710, 719, 1093, 1106, 
1134, 1139, 1765. 

V. Great Ind. P. R. Co., 1708^. 

V. Harminson, 63. 

V. Herron, 355, 359. 

V. Higgins, 1205. 



References are to paragraphs marked § 

Taylor v. Hillyer, 366, 369. 

V. Jacoby, 626, 1209. 

V. Jones, 1152, 1158. 

V. Mather, 725a. 

V. McCune, 713d. 

V. McFatter, 156. 

V. Moseley, 1379. 

V. NewmaD, 108, 508. 

V. Page, 834a. 

V. Plumer, 336. 

V. Purcell, 214. 

V. Reese, 1190. 

V. Reger, 94, 361, 403, 405. 

V. Ross, 1765. 

V. Sanford, 1250. 

V. Shelton, 307. 

V. Sip, 1578, 1587. 

V. Slater, 1260. 

V. Smith, 81c, 1183a. 

V. Snyder, 640, 1144, 1145, 1180. 

V. Surget, 267. 

V. Taylor, 1377, 1535a. 

V. Taylor's Estate, 161, 1227. 

V. Thomas, 68. 

V. Trussell, 815. 

V. Vossburg Mineral Springs Co., 

V. Wetmore, 1785&. 

V. Wilson, 1623. 

V. Young, 1086, 1595. 
Teasley v. Brenan Assn., 271. 
Tebbets v. Dowd, 1148, 1152, 1156, 

Tebbs V. Raihoad Co., 1739. 
Teberg v. Swenson, 1222. 
Tedens v. Schumers, 1227. 
Teed v. Elworth, 227. 

V. Parsons, 358a. 
Teery v. Alis, 741. 

V. Fargo, 294. 
Telford v. Patton, 24a, 1698a. 
Temple v. Baker, 713d. 

V. Carroll, 1590. 

V. Seaver, 683. 
Temple Nat. Bank v. Louisville Cotton 

Oil Co., 1734c. 
Temple St. Cable Ry. Co. v. Hellman, 

381, 383. 
Templeton v. Brown, 241. 

V. Poole, 724a. 
Tenney v. Porter, 205, 867. 

V. Prince, 694, 1760. 
Ten Eyck v. Vanderpoel, 270. 
Terbell v. Jones, 1055. 
Terrill v. TilUson, 183. 
Terry v. AUis, 741. 

V. Fargo, 294. 

V. Hazlewood, 1373a. 

V. Parker, 1047. 

V. Piatt, 69, 366, 374. 

Terry v. Ragsdale, 1646. 

V. Taylor, 814a. 
Terwilliger v. George O. Richardson 

Mach. Co., 203. 
Tescher w. Merea, 99, 796, 812. 
Tevis V. Young, 92. 
Texarkana & Fort Smith R. Co. v. 

Bemis Lumber Co., 386, 807. 
Texas v. White, 441. 

V. Hardenberg, 441, 724a, 782. 
Texas Banking Co. v. Turnley, 724a, 

769a, 782 824, 1500. 
Texas Land Co. v. Carroll, 56, 303, 

Texira v. Evans, 148. 
Thacher v. Stevens, 707a, 712. 
Thacker v. Thacker, 248. 
Thackray v. Blackett, 1464, 1079, 

Thame v. Boast, 1235. 
Thamling v. Duffy, 815, 815b. 
Thatcher v. Bank of the State of N. Y., 
326a, 388. 

V. Dinsmore, 186, 271, 1260. 

V. Stevens, 707a, 712. 

V. West River Nat. Bank, 189, 790. 
Thayer v. Buffum, 1183. 

V. Crossman, 1217. 

V. Elliott, 867. 

V. Goss, 369a. 

V. King, 1317, 1478, 1482. 

V. Manley, 776a, 1468a. 

V. Middlesex Mut. Ins. Co. 388. 

V. Montgomery County, 1492a. 
Thayers v. Manley, 1468a. 
The Bark Edwin, 1733. 
The Confederate Note Case, 87. 
The David & Caroline, 1741. 
The Delaware, 1729a, 1733. 
The Distilled Spirits, 802. 
The Governor v. Vagliano Bros., 136. 
The Hampton, 218. 
The Henry B. Hyde, 1741. 
The Invincible, 1741. 
The J. W. Brown, 1729. 
The John W. Cannon, 724a. 
The Joseph Grant, 1733. 
The Juniata Baton, 1741. 
The Kimball, 1260. 
The Lady Franklin, 1729, 1729a. 
The Loan, 1729a, 1733. 
The Lykus, 41. 
The Mayflower, 1732. 
The Onrust, 1742. 
The Oriflamme, 1742. 
The Phoenicia, 1741. 
The Prize Cases, 218. 
The Protection, 1740. 
The Rebecca, 1748. 
The Sally Magee, 1743. 


References are to paragraphs marked § 

The Santee, 1739. 

The Thames, 1740a, 1751. 

The Vaughan, 1751. 

The Venice, 218. 

The WilUam Bagaley, 218, 

Theard v. Gueringer, 758, 803. 

Theil V. Conrad, 643. 

Thetford v. McCUntock, 200. 

Thickemess v. Bromalowe, 361. 

Thiedemann v. Goldsmith, 174a. 

Thillman v. Guible, 609, 995b. 

Thimbleby v. Barron, 1291. 

Thin V. Richards & Co., 1741. 

Third Nat. Bank v. Allen, 1372, 1661. 

V. Angell, 573, 812. 

V. Ash worth, 1148. 

V. Boyd, 286a. 

V. Clark, 721. 

V. Fults, 358a. 

V. Hays, 1731. 

V. Laboringman's Mercantile &c. 
Co., 393, 394. 

V. Lange, 271, 713a, 795a. 

V. Merchants Nat. Bank, 677, 

V. Nat. Bank, 698c. 

V. Reichert, 81. 

V. Shields, 833. 

V. Snyder, 358a. 

V. Tinsley, 195a, 819. 

V. Vicksburg, 341. 
Third Nat. Bank of Columbus v. Poe, 

Third Nat. Bank of N. Y. v. Merchants 

Nat. Bank, 1655, 1661. 
Third Nat. Bank of Springfield, Mass., 

V. Nat. Bank of Commerce, 729, 

813a, 910. 
Thisler v. Mackey, 81. 
Thomas v. Atlantic Coast Line Ry. Co., 

V. Bishop, 413. 

V. City of Richmond, 14916. 

V. Davenport, 308a. 

V. Dickenson, 1269. 

V. Exchange, 1638. 

V. Hardscog & Burton, 356. 

V. H. C. Bagley & Co., 156. 

V. Hewes, 306. 

V. Jennings, 713d. 

V. Kinsey, 724a, 725a. 

V. Leland, 1556. 

V. Lewis, 24, 24o. 

V. Lynn, 834. 

V. Mayo, 1095a. 

V. Miller, 188. 

V. Newton, 816. 

V. Port Huron, 1523. 

V. Ruddell, 852. 

V. Scutt, 80. 

Thomas v. Shoemaker, 624, 1209. 
V. Supervisors, 1623. 
V. Thomas, 174, 573. 
V. Todd, 737, 1672a, 1675, 1676a. 
V. Watkins, 667. 
Thomas & McCafferty v. Siesel, 1181a. 
Thomasson v. Boyd, 234. 

V. Commercial Bank, 1611a. 
V. Wilson, 1411. 
Thompson v. Armstrong, 815. 
V. Briggs, 1300. 
V. Brown, 1253. 
V. Building Assn., 1181a. 
V. Campbell, 1326. 
V. Carter, 68a. 
V. City of Peru, 1524. 
V. Commercial Bank, 657. 
V. Gumming, 930. 
V. Downing, 1745a, 1748. 
V. Emery, 747. 
V. Flower, 576, 1205. 
V. Gray, 185, 1328. 
t;. Hale, 783. 
V, Hanson, 1966. 
V. Harrison, 195a. 
V. Hasselman, 403. 
V. Hicks, 177. 
V. Hoagland, 76. 
V. Houston, 49. 
V. Kelsey, 1417. 
V. Ketchum, 80, 88, 604, 639, 879, 

880, 892. 
V. Kock, 58. 
V. Kyle, 894, 919, 924. 
V. Lay, 233. 
V. Lee County, 10a, 389, 391, 729, 

1489, 1493, 1497, 1500, 15096, 

1513, 1514, 1520, 1523, 1525, 

1557, 1560, 1561. 
t;. Love, 80, 775. 
V. Lowe, 354. 
V McKee 719. 
v. Madduk, 184, 824, 831a, 832, 

V. Nat. Bank, 752. 
V. Percival, 1289a, 1299, 1301. 
V. Perkins, 314, 336. 
V. Perrine, 724, 729, 1496, 1552, 

1557, 1562. 
V. Pickel, 1458a. 
V. Pitman, 1646, 1648. 
V. Posten, 790. 
V. Powles, 917, 923. 
V. Rathbun, 145. 
V. Riggs, 334. 

V. St. Nicholas' Nat. Bank, 775. 
V. Samuels, 197. 
V. Searcy County, 420, 427. 
V. Shepherd, 726a. 
V. Sioux Falls Nat. Bank, 1652. 

•ITABLE Of cases 


References are to paragraphs marked § 

Thompson v. Sloan, 58. 

V. Thompson, 164. 

V. Thorne, 81c, 418. 

V. Toland, 1708g'. 

V. Warren, 172. 

V. West, 815. 

V. Wharton, 188. 

V. Wheatland Mercantile Co., 50. 

V. Williams, 972, 973, 975, 979, 
979a, 996. 

V. Wilson, 883, 1267. 
Thompson & Thompson v. Brown, 7136. 
Thompson & WaLkup Co. v. Appleby, 

Thomson v. Bank of British North 
America, 293, 1603. 

V. Gortner, 1468a. 

V. Lee County, 1489, 1493, 15096, 

V. Perrine, 10a. 
Thomson-Housten Elec. Co. v. Capital 

Elec. Co., 833. 
Thorington v. Smith, 87, 169. 
Thorn v. Pinkham, 196a. 

V. Rice, 1013. 
Thornburg v. Emmons, 465, 469, 617, 

Thornton v. Appleton, 1393. 

V. Lemon, 183, 248. 

V. Maynard, 1237. 

V. Rankin, 271. 

V. Wynn, 202, 1091, 1147, 1149. 
Thorold Mfg. Co. v. Imperial Bank, 

Thorp v'. Craig, 908. 

V. Gulseth, 1343. 
Thorpe v. Minderman, 47, 688c, 700, 

V. White, 714, 1409. 
Thorton v. Dean, 922. 

V. Dick, 490. 

V. Illingworth, 230. 

V. Wynn, 1149, 1153. 
Thrall v. Horton, 797. 

V. Newell, 733a, 734. 
Thrasher v. Dyer, 26. 

V. Ely, 1785. 

V. Everheart, 32, 885. 

V. Moran, 1458a. 
Threadgill v. Commissioner, 573, 812, 

Throp V. Craig, 879. 
Throop V. Grain Cleaner Co., 16a. 
Thrupp V. Fielder, 231. 
Thuemmler v. Barth, 340e, 1612a. 
Thurgood v. Spring, 203. 
Thurman v. Van Brunt, 1205, 1647. 
Thurston v. Island, 1763. 

V. Munn, 303. 

V. Wolfborough Bank, 1685. 

Tice V. Moore, 203. 

Ticknor v. Roberts, 909, 948, 1149. 

Ticonic Bank v. Smiley, 670. 

V. Stackpole, 9, 928, 963. 
Ticonic Nat. Bank v. Bagley, 1191, 

Tidioute Sav. Bank v. Libbe'y, 1773. 
Tidmarsh v. Grover, 1378. 
Tiedeman v. Knox, 1747a. 
Tiernan v. Commercial Bank, 341, 343. 

V. Jackson, 19, 451. 
Tiernan's Exrs. v. Woodruff, 1313. 
Tiffany v. Willis, 1789. 
Tilden v. Banard, 404, 819. 

V. Goldy Mach. Co., 392a, 598, 

V. Stilson, 834, 835. 
Tiller v. Spradley, 298. 
TiUinghast v. Wheaton, 24, 24a. 
Tillon V. Clinton, etc., Mut. Ins. Co., 

Timbel v. Garfield Nat. Bank, 1659. 
Timberlake v. Thayer, 1095, 1312. 
Times Square Automobile Co. v. 

Rutherford Nat. Bank, 177, 1603. 
Timmins v. Gibbons, 740, 1263, 1679a. 
Timms v. Delisle, 1014, 1015. 
Tindal v. Brown, 612, 972, 985, 987, 

990, 1037, 1175, 1590. 
Tinker v. Cathin, 173a, 703, 707a, 7136. 

V. Hurst, 194. 

V. McCauley, 716, 1776, 1779. 

V. Midland Valley Mercantile Co., 
Tinsley v. Hoskins, 62. 
Tipon County v. Lowenstein Works, 

Tipton V. Christopher, 832. 
Tisdale v. Mallett, 81. 

V. Maxwell, 71, 103. 
Tishomingo Sav. Inst. v. Johnson, 

Titcomb v. McAllister, 1260. 

V. Powers, 721. 

V. Thomas, 748. 
Title Guarantee & Trust Co. v. Haven, 

533, 1657. 
Tittle V. Thomas, 100. 
Titus V. Great Western Turnpike Co., 

V. Mechanics' Nat, Bank, 341. 
Tobey v. Barber, 1264, 1267, 1272, 
1275, 1276, 1278. 

V. Berly, 1048. 

V. Chipman, 859. 

V. Lenning, 979a. 
Tobin V. McKinney, 1215. 
Tobriner v. White, 81a. 
Toby V. Railroad Co., 1192. 
Tod V. Wick, 805, 819. 



References are to paragraphs marked § 

Todd V. Ames, 249. 

V. Bailey, 248. 

V. Bank of Kentucky, 880, 896, 
1381, 1382. 

V. Edwards, 1015. 

V. Lee, 248, 250. 

V. Neal's Admr., 9, 908, 909, 911, 
934, 1050. 

V. Shelburne, 758. 
Toledo Iron Works v. Heisser, 301, 305. 
Tolerton & Stetson Co. v. Anglo- 
California Bank, 174a, 1181a. 

V. Roberts, 1343. 
Tolle V. Boecklcr, 1343. 
Tollman v. American National Bank, 

Tolman v. Janson, 43, 812. 

V. Hanrahan, 362, 488. 
Tombeckbee Bank v. Dumell, 370. 

V. Stratton, 1310. 
Tombler v. Reitz, 710. 
Tomblin v. Higgins, 1251. 
Tome V. Parkersburg R. Co., 390. 
Tomlin v. Thornton, 1590. 
Tomlinson v. H. P. Drought & Co., 62. 
Tompkins v. Ashby, 36a, 40. 

V. Compton, 200. 

V. Mitchell, 1281. 

V. Woodward, 365, 366. 
Tompkins County Nat. Bank v. Bun- 
nell & Eno Co., 831c. 
Toms V. Powell, 1235. 
Toner v. Wagner, 1227. 
Took V. Tuck, 194. 
Tooke V. Bonds, 1251. 

V. Newman, 832a. 
Toole V. Crafts, 612, 714, 1098, 1148, 

Toomer v. Dickerson, 1311. 

V. Rutland, 1395, 1405, 1411. 
Tooting V. Hubbard, 484. 
Tootle, Ex -parte, 41. 
Toovey v. Ayrhart, 1699. 
Topeka Capital Co. v. March, 394a. 
Toplitz V. Bauer, 833. 
Torbert v. Montague, 717, 1104. 
Torbett v. Worthy, 207. 
Torinus v. Buckham, 203. 
Torpey v. Tebo, 47, 185. 
Torrey v. Baxter, 1260. 

V. Dustin Monument Assn., 392a. 

V. Foss, 1085, 1485. 

V. Hadley, 1264. 
Touchard v. Touchard, 1527a. 
Tower v. Appleton, 1685, 1694. 

V. Durell, 1140. 

V. Richardson, 81. 
V. Whip, 850. 
Towers v. Moore, 1298. 
Towles V. Tanner, 164, 1402. 

Towne v. Rice, 14, 51a, 403. 

V. Wason, 1191. 
Towner v. McClelland, 782, 834. 
Townsend v. Bank of Racine, 737, 

V. Colorado Fuel & Iron Co., 1489. 

V. Derby, 108. 

t;. Drygoods Co., 638, 644, 979a, 

V. Hager, 802. 

V. Lorain Bank, 929, 983, 984, 985. 

V. Star Wagon Co., 1378. 
Townsley v. Sumrall, 184, 449, 454, 465, 

569, 570, 909, 945, 959. 
Trabue v. Short, 899. 
Tracy v. Alvord, 25. 

V. First Nat. Bank of Syracuse, 
Trader v. Chichester, 62. 
Traders' Bank v. Alsop, 197. 
Traders' Nat. Bank v. Jones, 990. 

V. Parker, 1215. 
Tradesmen's Nat. Bank v. Curtis, 81t(, 

Traer v. Mullaly, 1731. 
Trafford v. Hall, 725. 
Train v. Jones, 17856. 
Tramwell v. Hudmon, 1450. 
Transportation Co. v. Downer, 1741. 
Tranter v. Hibberd, 156, 1373. 
Trapp t'. Spearman, 1378. 
Trask v. Martin, 617. 
Trauck v. Hill, 769a. 
Travellers' Ins. Co. v. Denver, 433. 

V. Mayor of Johnson City, 14916. 
Traver v. Evansville Furniture Co., 

Travers r. T. M. Sinclair & Co., 1587. 
Travis v. Watson, 1312. 
Treacy and Wilson v. Chinn, 200. 
Treadway v. Sanger, 10a. 
Treadwell v. Commissioners, 1550, 

Treanor v. Yingling, 1311. 
Treat v. Suydecker, Tyffe & Co., 195a. 
Trebilcock v. Wilson, 1245. 
Trecothick v. Edwin, 1383. 
Tredick v. Walters, 199a, 815. 

V. Wendell, 654. 
Tredway v. Antisdel, 709. 
Trego V. Lowery, 174. 
Trent Tile Co. v. Fort Dearborn Nat. 

Bank, 490. 
Trentman v. Fletcher, 1250. 
Tretwell v. Carter, 1314. 
Treutell v. Barandon, 282, 283, 698, 

Trezevant & Cochran v. R. H. Powell 

& Co., 832. 
Trickey v. Larne, 203. 



References are to paragraphs marked § 

Trieber v. Commercial Bank, 69, 70. 

Trier v. Bridgman, 162. 

Trigg V. Taylor, 1408. 

Trimbey v. Vignier, 867, 883, 906. 

Trimble v. Thorn, 1304, 1305, 1147, 

1152, 1339. 
Triplet v. Randolph, 1312. 
Triplett v. Fanver, 396. 

V. Foster, 573, 812, 815. 

V. Hunt, 987. 
Tripp V. Curtenius, 1702a, 1703, 1707. 

V. Swanzey Man. Co., 387. 
Tritt V. Colwcll, 254. 
Troendle v. Highleman, 917. 
Trombley v. Trombley, 1344. 
Trost V. Hinman, 812. 
Troy V. Cohoes Shul Co., 795c. 
Troy City Bank v. Lauman, 515, 1380. 
Trubee v. Alden, 800o. 
True V. Bullard, 666, 669, 717. 

V. Collins, 1029. 

V. Fuller, 1776. 

V. Thomas, 1586, 1596, 1629. 
Trueman v. Fenton, 182. 

V. Loder, 740a. 
Trull V. Menetone, 125. 
Trullinger ;;. Kofold, 1252. 
Truman v. Bishop, 81c. 
Trumpbour v. Trumpbour, 327. 
Trundy v. Farrar, 317. 
Truscott V. Davis, 862. 
Truss V. Miller, 1236a, 1343, 1340. 
Trust Co. V. Nat. Bank, 1782. 
Trust Co. of America v. Conklin, 1659. 

V. Hamilton Bank, 533, 1225, 1369. 
Trustee v. Knox, 1689. 
Trustees v. Parks, 1188. 

V. Rautenberg, 403. 
Trustees of American Bank v. Mc- 

Comb, 781, 789. 
Trustees of I. I. Fund v. Lewis, 1510. 
Trustees of Schools v. McCaughy, 

V. McCormick, 316, 322. 
Trustees of Westminster College v. Pier- 
sol, 156. 
Tryon v. Oxley, 262, 1612. 
Tucker v. Bradley, 67. 

V. City of Virginia, 1527. 

V. Coffin, 205. 

V. Fairbanks, 409. 

V. McCauley, 1779. 

V. Nat. Bank of Athens, 1230. 

V. Randall, 1213. 

V. Roach, 177, 1966. 

V. Ronk, 196&. 
Tuckerman v. French, 17856. 

V. Hartwell, 154. 

V. Newhall, 1294. 
Tudor V. Goodloe, 1317. 

Tulley V. Citizens State Bank, 393. 
Tullisi;. McClary, 1181a. 
Tunno v. Lague, 1006. 
Tuohy V. Woods, 1316, 1318. 
Turber v. Caverly, 1099. 
Turk V. Richmond, 196. 
Turnbull v. Block, 1327. 

V. Bowyer, 1113. 

V. Ferret, 268. 

V. Hill, 1152. 

V. Maddox, 1147. 

V. Strohbecker, 1425. 

V. Thomas, 74. 
Turner v. Bank of Fox Lake, 1625. 

V. Billagram, 1416. 

V. Browder, 176, 534. 

V. Brown, 181. 

V. First Nat. Bank, 286a. 

V. Hoole, 194. 

V. Hoyle, 724a. 

V. Iron Mining Co., 609. 

V. Keller, 672, 676. 

V. Leech, 988, 1045, 1127, 1224. 

V. Mead, 655. 

V. P. & S. R. Co., 50a. 

V. Pearson, 205. 

V. Rogers, 185, 936, 962. 

V. Ross, 1215a. 

V. Sampson, 9956, 1085. 

V. Stones, 1679a. 

V. Trustees of the Liverpool Docks, 
1730a, 1734a. 

V. Turner, 1227. 

V. Ware, 177. 
Turniss v. Gilchrist, 385. 
Turpin v. Thompson, 24. 
Turrentine v. Grigsby, 1228. 
Tuskaloosa Oil Co. v. Perry, 393, 1227. 
Tutt V. Hobbs, 1564. 

V. Thornton, 1373a, 1398. 
Tuttle V. Bartholomew, 1782. 

V. Becker, 1197. 

V. First Nat. Bank, 271. 

V. Fowler, 257. 

V. George H. Tuttle & Co., 203. 

V. Mayo, 1687. 

V. Standish, 1476, 1481. 

V. Walton, 1708d. 

V. Wilson, 725. 
TweKth Ward Bank v. Brooks, 1243. 
Twentieth Century Co. v. Quilling, 

Twenty-sixth Ward Bank v. Stearns, 

Twopenny v. Young, 548, 1291, 1296, 

Tye V. Gwynne, 203. 
Tygart v. Sutton, 202. 
Tyler v. Gould, 1636, 1644. 

V. Jaeger, 185. 


References are to paragraphs marked 

Tyler v. Walker, 62, 62a. 

V. Young, 611. 
Tvree v. Lyon, 365, 366. 
Tyrell v. Cairo & St. L. R. Co., 879, 889, 

Tyson v. Bray, 174a. 

V. Joyner, 1219. 

V. Oliver, 1007, 1023, 1030. 

V. School Directors, 1556. 

V. State Bank, 324, 329, 341. 

V. Western Nat. Bank, 340, 693. 

V. Woodruff, 196b. 
Tyson & Ralls v. Weston Nat. Bank, 

336, 340. 

Ubsdell V. Cunnmgham, 43. 

Uhl V. Harvey, 3696. 

Ullery v. Brohm, 95. 

Uhich V. McCormick, 375. 

Ulster Bank v. Synatt, 1734i. 

Ulster County Bank v. McFarland, 

561, 1756, 1799. 
Unaka Nat. Bank v. Butler, 776. 
Underbill v. Phillips, 108. 
Underwood v. Am. Mtg. Co., 922. 

V. Simmons, 81. 
Unger v. Boas, 674. 
Union Bank v. Beirne, 275. 
V. Coster, 1790, 1797a. 
V. Crime, 1338. 
V. Ellicott, 1689. 
V. Ezell, 611. 
V. Fowlkes, 953, 959. 
V. Gilbert, 205, 751. 
V. Grimshaw, 1162. 
V. Humphreys, 982. 
V. Hyde, 926, 968, 1095, 1095a. 
V. Laird, 1708c. 
V. Magruder, 1100. 
V. Middlebrook, 963. 
V. Ridgely, 388. 
V. Simser, 1260. 
V. Stone, 1056. 
V. Trust Co., 742. 
V. Warren, 1478, 1695. 
V. Willis, 455, 594, 710, 713, 713a, 
999a, 1757. 
Union Bank of Bridgwater v. Spies, 51, 
103. , , 

Union Bank of Brooklyn v. Deshel, 

Union Bethel v. Sheriff, 85. 
Union Brewing Co. v. Interstate Bank 

& Trust Co., 141, 741, 1266. 
Union Central Life Ins. Co. v. Champ- 
lin, 196. 
V. Huyck, 177. 
V. Pollard, 865, 887, 891. 

Union Central Life Ins. Co. v. Wynne, 

Union Collection Co. v. Buckman, 183, 

195a, 742, 815. 
Union, etc., R. Co. v. Yaeger, 1733. 
Union Ins. Co. v. Grcenleaf, 41. 
Union Iron Works Co. v. Union Naval 

Stores Co., 394. 
Union Nat. Bank v. Barber, 815, 825, 
1200, 1470. 
V. Brown, 197. 
V. Chapman, 865, 867. 
V. Citizens Nat. Bank, 334, 336, 

340e, 1621. 
v. Cooley, 1311. 
V. Cross, 1319. 
V. First Nat. Bank, 739a. 
V. Fraser, 197, 205. 
V. Griswold, 1713a. 
V. Hines, 742. 
V. Marr's Admr., 1060. 
V. McKey, 326a. 
V. Menefee, 789a. 
V. Neill, 10, 94, 357, 365, 368, 775. 
V. Oceana County Bank, 1637. 
V. Roberts, 832a, 1373a, 1395. 
V. Rowan, 1731. 
V. Slocomb, 748. 
V. Underbill, 366. 
V. Wheeler, 674. 
V. Windsor, 7796. 
Union Nat. Bank of Columbus, Ohio, v. 

Mailloux, 775, 7796, 815. 
Union Nat. Bank of New Orleans v. 

Grant, 1310. 
Union Nat. Bank of Troy v. Wilhams 

Milling Co., 950, 952, 955. 
Union & Planters Bank of Memphis v. 

Jefferson, 186. 
Union Pac. R. Co. v. Johnson, 1731. 
Union Sav. Bank & Trust Co. v. 

Indiana Lounge Co., 1611a. 
Union Square Bank v. Hellerson, 790, 

791, 793a, 802. 
Union Stock Yards Co. v. Westcott, 

Union Stock Yards Nat. Bank v. 
Bolan, 47. 
V. Coffman, 248, 249. 
V. Haskell, 1230, 1233. 
Union Trust Co. v. Chicago R. Co., 50a. 
V. McClellan, 791, 793a. 
V. McGinty, 1302, 1312. 
V. McKeon, 1230. 
V. Monticello, etc., R. Co., 1491a. 
V. Rigdon, 187. 
V. Wilson, 1713a. 
Union Trust Co. of New Jersey v. 

McCrum, 144, 1312. 
United States v. Babbit, 1527. 



References are to paragraphs marked 

United States v. B. & O. R. Co., 1519o. 

V. Bank of Metropolis, 174a, 436, 
437, 512, 517, 547. 

V. Barker, 217, 438, 454, 478, 932, 
1039, 1041. 

V. Boice, 443, 1189a. 

V. Cameal, 657. 

V. City Bank, 392. 

V. Clinton Nat. Bank, 1371. 

V. County of Clark, 1491c. 

V. Cushman, 1296. 

V. Dodge County, 1522. 

V. Dunn, 719. 

V. Grossmayer, 222, 1060. 

V. Hodge, 1313, 1328. 

V. Huckabee, 857. 

V. January, 1250. 

V. Kanhoe, 196a. 

V. Kirkpatrick, 1250, 1252. 

V. Lapine, 222. 

V. Leffler, 1217. 

V. Linn, 1391. 

V. Morrison, 1525. 

V. Nat. Bank, 436. 

V. Nat. Park Bank, 1364, 1369. 

V. Oregon R. & Nav. Co., 1713a. 

V. Simpson, 1311, 1339. 

V. Spalding, 1373a. 

V. Vaughan, 1644. 

V. White, 99, 104, 106, 130. 
United States Bank v. Bank of Georgia, 
1672, 1688. 

V. Binny, 363. 

V. Booney, 357. 

V. Cameal, 601. 

V. Russel, 1374. 

V. Sill, 1696. 

V. Southard, 1149, 1156. 
United States Bung Mfg. Co. v. Arm- 
strong, 1424. 
United States Exch. Bank v. Zimmer- 
man, 7956. 
United States Express Co . ?;. Haines, 125 . 
United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. 

V. Adou & Lobit, 795a. 
United States Mortgage Co. v. Gross, 

United States Nat. Bank v. Burton, 
1005a, 1188. 

V. Ewing, 339, 697, 791, 792. 

V. First Nat. Bank, 389, 393. 

V. Geer, 717, 719. 

V. Nat. Exch. Bank, 1663. 

V. Park Nat. Bank, 1359, 1400, 
United States Nat. Bank of Portland v. 

Waddingham, 1458a. 
United States Nat, Bank of Vale v. 

First Trust & Sav. Bank of Brogan, 

487, 1643, 1645. 

United States Tr. Co. v. Mayor, 1223. 

V. Village of Mineral Ridge, 1538. 
United States Wind Engine Co. v. 

Simonton, 719. 
United States Wringer Co. v. Cooney, 

717, 1227. 
University Press v. Williams, 1115, 

1116, 1117. 
Updegraft v. Edwards, 834. 
Upham V. Prince, 700, 1782, 1783. 
Urton V. Hunter, 875. 
Usefof V. Herzenstein, 612. 
Usher v. Dauncey 142, 372. 

V. Gaither, 1472. 
Uther V. Rich, 770, 774. 
Utica V. Churchill, 1708a. 
Utica Bank v. Ganson, 1190. 

V. Smalley, 17086. 
Utica City Nat. Bank v. Talhnan, 679. 
Uvalde v. Spier, 1550, 1560. 

Vacarro v. Toof, 350a. 
Vaduzer v. Howe, 540, 1405. 
VaU V. Van Doren, 85, 925. 
Valentine v. HoUoman, 686. 

i;. Foster, 182. 

V. Packer, 283. 
Valette v. Mason, 832a. 
VaUquette v. Clark Bros. Coal Min. 

Co., 296. 
Valk V. Gaillard, 998. 

V. Simmons, 1081. 
Vallett V. Parker, 197, 369, 807, 808, 

Valley Sav. Bank v. Mercer, 776. 
Valpy V. Oakeley, 1280. 
Van Allen v. American Nat. Bank, 326c, 

336, 1636. 
Van Aernam v. Granger, 812. 
Van Amee v. Bank of Troy, 336, 337, 

339, 340. 
Van Auken v. Hombeck, 1472, 1482. 
Van Bibber v. Louisiana Bank, 1637. 
Van Brunt v. Eoff, 1403. 

V. Singley, 849. 

V. Vaughn, 1005a. 
Van Buskh-k v. State Bank of Rocky 

Ford, 479, 551, 1606. 
Vance v. Collins, 1005, 1387. 

V. Lowther, 1658. 

V. McLaughUn, 256. 

V. Ward, 550, 551. 

V. Wells, 240. 
Vancleave v. Beach, 1245, 1423. 
Vancleef v. Therasson, 874. 
Vandagrift v. Bates County Inv. Co., 

782, 1236. 
Vandenburg v. Hall, 350. 



References are to paragraphs marked § 

Vanderford v. Farmers' Bank, 1312. 
Vander Ploeg v. Van Zuuk, 144. 
Vanderpool v. Brake, 859. 
Vandesande v. Chapman, 1209. 
Vandeveer v. Ogden, 83. 
Vanderveer v. Wright, 1784. 
Vandeventer v. Davis, 185, 248, 1338. 
Vandewall v. Tyrrell, 580, 941, 1254, 

Van Doren v. Tjada, 713c. 
Vandike v. Wilder & Co., 1288. 
Vanduzer v. Howe, 147. 
Van Dyke v. Wildor & Co., 1288. 
Van Eman v. Stanchfield, 664a, 741. 
Van Epps v. Dillaye, 1299. 
Van Eps v. Newald, 1411. 
Van Etten v. Newton, 1738, 1740a. 
Van Hoesen v. Van Alstj-ne, 996. 
Van Hostrup v. Madison City, 1540. 
Van Keuren v. Corkins, 834. 

V. Parmlee, 370, 374. 
Vann v. Edwards, 242, 1227. 
Van Ness v. Forrest, 1189. 
Van Norden Trust Co. v. Rosenberg, 

Van Patton v. Beals, 210. 

V. Marks, 212. 
Van Raugh v. Van ArsdaJe, 875. 
Van Reimsdyck v. Kane, 568, 882. 
Van Rensselaer's Exrs. v. Roberts, 1253. 
Van Riper v. Baldwin, 1197. 
Van Sands v. Middlesex County Bank, 

Van Schaack v. Stafford, 751. 
Van Schaic v. Edwards, 867, 923. 
Vanstandt v. Hobbs, 1222, 1223. 
Van Steenburgh v. Hoffman, 240. 
Vanstrum v. Lilengren, 174a, 497, 515. 
Van Vechten v. Pruyn, 1016, 1025, 1033. 

V. Smith, 80. 
Van Vliet v. Kanter, 1458a. 
Van Vlissingen v. Roth, 576. 
Van Voorhis v. Brown, 365, 795?>. 
Van Wagenen v. Genesee Falls Sav. 

Assn., 278. 
Van Wart v. Wooley, 329, 241, 476, 

564, 995a, 1176, 1262, 1788. 
Van Wickle v. Downing, 1149. 
Van Windsch v. Klaus, 769a. 
Vanzant v. Arnold, 877. 
Van Zant v. Hopkins, 41, 45, 151, 154. 
Vapereau v. Holcombe, 156, 179. 
Varin v. Hobson, 775. 
Varnarsdale v. Hax, 1198. 
Varner w. Nobleborough, 161, 430, 1260. 
Varney v. Monroe Nat. Bank, 1226. 
Varnum v. Milford, 802. 
Vashon v. Greenhow, 448. 
Vass V. Riddick, 177. 
Vastine v. Wilding, 1702. 

Vater v. Lewis, 93, 101, 415. 
Vather v. Zane, 166, 177, 815, 816, 
VatterUen v. Howell, 832. 
Vaughan v. Fowler, 1391..' 

V. Potter, 602, 926, 959, 970, 995, 
1021, 1038. 
Vaughn v. Farmers', etc., Nat. Bank, 
27, 2406, 449, 1643. 

V. Ferrall, 859. 

V. Fuller, 1165. 

V. Johnson, 775, 815, 819. 

V. Wabash Ry. Co., 1741. 
Veal y. Veal, 24. 
Veazie v. Carr, 1305, 1316. 
Veazie Bank v. Paulk, 751. 

V. Winn, 1209, 1210, 1590. 
Veeder v. Town of Luna, 1550, 1552, 

1553 1555. 
Veneable'v. Lippold, 248, 769a. 
Venice v. Murdock, 1537. 
Vennum v. Carr, 195a. 
Verbeck v. Scott, 803. 
Verder v. Verder, 996. 
Vere v. Lewis, 136, 137. 
Vermilye v. Adams Express Co., 441. 
Vermont Township Bank v. Railroad 

Co., 1775. 
Vemey v. Steiner Bros., 1181a. 
Vernon v. Manhattan Co., 353, 369&. 
Vertue v. Jewel, 1749. 
Vestal V. Knight, 1312, 13176, 1338. 
Vette V. La Barge, 787. 

V. Sacher, 799. 
Vickers v. Battershall, 154. 
Vickery v. Burton, 812. 

V. State Sav. Assn., 336. 
Victor V. Bauer, 7796. 
Vidal V. Thompson, 908, 915. 
Viele V. Hoag, 1322. 
Viets V. Nat. Bank, 1636. 

V. Silver, 65. 
Vila V. Weston, 1199. 
Vilas V. Jones, 1317. 
Viles V. Moulton, 1470. 
Village of Ft. Edward v. Fish, 377. 
Vincent v. Horlock, 688c, 1195. 
Vinson v. Palmer, 86a, 1181a. 
Vinton v. King, 787, 858. 

V. Peck, 69, 758a. 
Violet V. Rose, 164, 815. 
Violett V. Patton, 189, 694, 843, 899, 

Vipond V. Townsend, 62.^ 
Virginia v. Ches. & Ohio Canal Co., 

1500, 1513, 1514. 
Virginia & Tenn. R. Co. v. Clav, 1490, 
1494, 1495, 1500, 1511, 1512, 1514. 
Virginia-Carolina Chemical Co. v. 
Fisher, 240. 

V. Steen, 1230. 



References are to paragraphs marked § 

Virginia Coupon Cases, 448. 
Virginia State Bank v. Gibson, 451. 
Vischer v. Webster, 1406. 
Vitkovitch v. Kleinecke, 189, 1326. 
Vliet V. Camp, 922. 

V. Simanton, 400. 
Voereis v. Nussbaum, 807. 
Vogel V. Starr, 1014, 1028. 
Vogle V. Ripper, 1373a, 1410a, 1412. 
Voice V. Rosenberry, 174. 
Voit V. Corr, 649. 
Voltz V. Harris, 1786, 1788. 

V. Nat. Bank, 1774. 
Vonhoffman v. United States, 724a. 
Voorhees v. Atlee, 1096. 
Vore V. Hurst, 707, 709, 716. 
Voreis v. Nussbaum, 807. 
Voris V. Harshbarger, 210, 229. 
Vosberg v. Brown, 248. 
Vosburg V. Diefendorf, 775, 779, 804, 

Voss V. Chamberlain, 775, 819, 831a, 

V. German-American Bank, 326&. 

V. Lewis, 1340. 

V. Robertson, 1750. 
Vrandenburg v. Johnson, 81d. 
Vreeland v. Blunt, 23. 

V. Hyde, 607, 609. 
Vulliamy v. Noble, 369a. 


Wabash R. Co. v. Brown, 1741. 
Wachusetts Nat. Bank v. Fairbrother, 

Wackerbath, Ex parte, 521, 1255. 
Waddell v. Hanover National Bank, 

WaddiU v. Alabama R. Co., 384. 
Waddle v. Owen, 80. 
Wade V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 7586, 

V. Creighton, 709, 714. 

V. EUiott, 664a, 803. 

V. Foster, 724a. 

V. New Orleans Canal, etc., Co., 
1481, 1694. 

V. Staunton, 1328. 

V. Town of La Moille, 1524. 

V. Travis County, 1522, 1525. 

V. Wade, 701, 1482. 
Wadhams v. Portland & Y. R. Co., 

Wadhams & Co. v. Inman, Poulsen & 

Co., 534. 
Wadle V. Owen, 80. 
Wadley v. Lancaster, 420. 
Wadlington v. Covert, 50. 
Wadsworth v. Allen, 1788. 

Wadsworth v. Dunnam, 204. 

t;. Sherman, 213. 

V. Supervisors, 1524. 
Wager v. Brooks, 1375. 
Wagman v. Hoag, 1322. 
Wagner, In re Estate of, 1200. 

V. Diedrich, 146, 7956. 

V. Kenner, 624, 625. 

V. Ladd, 1221. 

V. Scherer, 196. 

V. Simmons, 357, 831a. 

V. Tupper, 926. 
Wagon Co. v. Swezy, 1326. 
Wain V. Bailey, 1475. 

V. Walters, 1764. 
Wainwright v. Webster, 737, 1676. 
Wait V. McKee, 726, 1342. 

V. Pomeroy, 149, 150, 1397, 1407. 
Waite, Matter of, 1228. 
Waithman v. Elzee, 39. 
Wake V. Tinkler, 1424. 
Wakerbath, Ex parte, 530. 
Wakefield v. Greenhood, 566. 
Walbridge v. Arnold, 196a. 

V. Harron, 182. 
Walde Asphalt Paving Co. v. National 

Trading Co., 189. 
Walden v. Downing Co., 775, 815, 819, 

V. Sherburne, 370. 
Waldo Bank v. Lambert, 368. 
Waldorf v. Simpson, 1373a. 
Waldrip v. Black, 1342. 
Waldron v. Young, 142. 
Wales V. Mower, 1230. 

V. Webb, 207. 
Walker v. Atwood, 508. 

V. Bank of Augusta, 1015. 

V. Bank of New York, 307, 341, 
414, 1381. 

V. Bank of the State, 511. 

V. Christian, 443a, 445. 

V. Clay, 80. 

V. Dement, 834. 

V. Dunham, 714, 1266, 1267. 

V. Ebert, 849. 

V. Eyth, 1428. 

V. Fearhake, 1432. 

V. First Nat. Bank, 1743. 

V. Forbes, 1785, 17856. 

V. Geisse, 85. 

V. Hamilton, 1449. 

V. Kee, 368, 748, 775. 

V. Kimble, 1186a. 

i;. Laverty, 1151. 

V. McDonald, 696. 

V. Monroe, 16a. 

V. Patterson, 262. 

V. Roberts, 47. 

V. Rogers, 1147, 1149, 


References are to paragraphs marked § 

Walker v. State Bank, 979. 
V. State Trust Co., 294. 
V. Stetson, 454, 1026, 1058. 
V. Title Ins. Co., 1318, 1327. 
V. Tunstall, 962, 1027. 
V. Turner, 929, 960, 961, 1055. 
V. Wait, 354. 
V. Walker, 1133, 1625. 
V. Warfield, 112. 
V. Winn, 174a. 
V. Woolen, 44, 61, 62a. 
Wallr. Bry, 1091, 1093, 1095a, 1102. 
V. County of Monroe, 420, 427, 

V. Emigrant Industrial Sav. Bank, 
1655, 1657. 
Wallabout Bank v. Peyton, 7796. 
Wallace v. Agrv, 454, 465, 466, 470, 
473, 94^3, 986. 
V. Branch Bank, 283, 753. 
V. Crilleo, 603. 
V. Goold, 713f. 
V. Hardacre, 196a. 
V. Harmstad, 1410a. 
V. Jewell, 1387. 
V. Kelsall, 1428. 
V. Lincoln Sav. Bank, 1630a. 
V. Loomis, 1499c. 

V. Mayor of San Jose, 1550, 1551. 
V. McConnell, 334, 520, 643, 

V. Richards, 1316, 1318. 
V. Tellfair, 330. 
V. Tice, 1410a, 1411. 
Wallace, Admr., v. Lipps, Admr., 759, 

Waller v. Tate, 748. 
Walley v. Desert Nat. Bank, 1312. 

V. Montgomery, 1736, 1745. 
Wallis V. Litteell, 721. 
Walls V. Baird, 1295. 
Wall's Case, 1346. 
Walmsley v. Acton, 951. 
V. Child, 1466, 1470. 
V. Cooper, 1291. 
V. Rivers, 962. 
Wain V. Bank, 1708d. 
Walnut V. Wade, 1506, 1509&, 1513, 

1514, 1515, 1537. 
Walpole V. Ellison, 1413. 

V. Pulteney, 544. 
Walrad v. Petrie, 103, 163. 
Walrath v. Thompson, 1756. 
Walsh V. Batchley, 463. 
V. Cooper, 1260. 
V. Dart, 472, 617, 908. 
V. Hunt, 282, 284, 1373a, 1384. 
V. Lennon, 1260. 
V. Pearce, 1219. 
Walsh's Appeal, 24. 

Walsh, Boyle & Co. v. First Nat. Bank, 

Walston V. Davis, 1227. 
Walter v. Cubley, 1399. 
V. Haynes, 1029. 
V. Kirk, 1209. 
Walters v. Brown, 1008, 1009. 
V. Monroe, 1140. 
V. Rock, 775, 776, 789a, 819. 
V. Short, 1418. 

«;. Western & A. R. Co., 1733b. 
Walton V. Bemmiss, 1260. 
V. Hastings, 1376. 
V. Mascall, 827. 
V. Shelly, 1217. 
V. Williams, 128. 
Walton & Whann Co. v. Davis, 1251. 
Walton Guano Co. v. Copelan, 849a. 
Walton Plough Co. v. Campbell, 1395, 

Walwyn v. St. Quintin, 424, 1076, 1077, 

1204, 1227, 1237. 
Walz V. Alback, 710, 713a. 
Wamesit Bank v. Butterick, 995. 
Wamsley v. Lindenberger, 225, 230, 

Wangner v. Grimm, 1227. 
Waples-Painter Co. v. Bank of Com- 
merce, 926, 970. 
Warburton v. Ralph, 1324. 
Ward V. Allen, 497, 505. 

V. Bank of Kentucky, 291. 
V. Barrows, 37. 
V. Bourne, 1260. 
V. Churn, 63, 856. 
V. City Trust Co., 776, 795c, 832. 
V. Cornett, 62a, 1458a. 
V. Doane, 196. 
V. Evans, 1262, 1623, 1679a. 
V. Hackett, 854, 1387, 1389. 
V. Howard, 769a. 
V. Howe, 874. 
V. Johnson, 1296. 
V. Lewis, 856. 
V. Northern Bank, 656. 
V. Perrin, 1032, 1033. 
V. Smith, 218, 222, 325, 326. 
V. Sugg, 198. 
V. Turner, 24, 26. 
V. Vass, 1311. 
Warden v. Howell, 791, 792, 794, 831c. 

V. Hughes, 107. 
Warden v. Ryan, 1375. 
Wardens of St. James' Church v. 

Moore, 128. 
Warder v. Arell, 9, 874. 
V. Pattee, 317. 
V. Tucker, 1083, 1148. 
Warder, Bushnell & Glessner Co. v. 
Libby, 1478, 1480. 



References are to paragraphs marked § 

Warder, Bushnell & Glessner Co. v. 

Myers, 202. 
Wardlow v. List, 1401. 
Wardrop v. Dunlop, 322, 575. 
Wardwell v. Haight, 369&. 
Ware v. Allen, 68a. 

V. City Bank, 62a. 

V. Smith, 63. 

V. Street, 737, 1677, 1685. 
Waring, Ex parte, 1343. 

V. Betts, 602, 603, 654, 1114, 1118. 

V. Gaskill, 833. 

V. Smith, 1373a. 
Warman v. First Nat. Bank, 779&, 812. 
Warner v. Beardsley, 1305. 

V. Citizens' Nat. Bank, 867. 

V. Gruwell, 59. 

V. Spencer, 1396. 
Wamick v. Crane, 584. 
Warning v. Betts, 1111. 
Warren v. Brown, 56. 

V. Chapman, 204. 

V. Coombs, 9, 1455. 

V. Durfee, 25. 

V. Oilman, 985, 995, 1005a, 1229. 

V. Gruwell, 741. 

V. Haight, 726&. 

V. Harrold, 262, 271. 

V. Layton, 1411, 1418. 

V. Lynch, 32, 885. 

V. Martin, 366. 

V. Osborn, 156. 

V. Scott, 104, 105. 

V. Smith, 814a, 1225, 1469. 
Warren Bank v. Suffolk Bank, 341. 
Warren County v. Marcy, 800a, 

1506a, 1537. 
Warren-Scharf Asphalt Paving Co. v. 

Commercial Nat. Bank, 1361. 
Warrensburg Co-Op. Assn. v. ZoU, 

Warring v. Hill, 1260, 1340. 
Warrington v. Early, 149, 1385, 1397. 

V. Furbor, 1172. 
Warshawsky v. Grand Theatre Co., 183. 
Wartman v. Yost, 1422, 1426, 1429. 
Warwick v. Bruce, 227. 

t;. Nairn, 202. 

V. Noakes, 287, 314, 1474. 

V. Rogers, 1636&. 
Washburn v. Picot, 202. 
Washington County Mut. Ins. Co. v. 

Miller, 47. 
Washington Nat. Bank v. Pierce, 802. 
Washington Sav, Bank v. Ekey, 1406. 

V. Ferguson, 717. 
Washington Times Co. v. Wilder, 388, 

Wasson V. Cabot Bank, 824. 
V. Hodshire, 1325, 

Wasson v. Lamb, 1621. 
Waterbury v. Andrews, 193, 240. 

V. Sinclair, 713d. 
Waterloo MiUing Co. v. Kuenster, 342. 
Waterman v. Vose, 1385. 
Waters v. Bank of Georgia, 1693. 

V. Brown, 1116. 
Watervliet Bank v. White, 417, 1188. 
Watford v. Windham, 573, 1181a. 
Watkins v. American Nat. Bank, 203. 

V. Angotti, 1181a. 

t;. Crouch, 643, 644, 1128, 1130, 
1131, 1133, 1135, 1136, 1172. 

V. Halstead, 240. 

V. Harris, 1215. 

t;. Hill, 835a, 1266&. 

17. Hopkins, Exr., 1424. 

V. Maule, 260, 267, 680, 685, 744, 

V. Plummer, 293. 

i;. SpouU, 1221. 

V. Willis, 1209. 
Watley v. Deseret Nat. Bank, 1317. 
Watson V. Barr, 713a. 

V. Boston Woven Cordage Co., 

V. Cabot Bank, 824. 

V. City of Huron, 427, 1520. 

V. Davis, 90a. 

V. Evans, 103, 684. 

i;. Flanagan, 174a, 728, 803. 

V. Heasel, 224. 

t;. Hoag. 861. 

t;. Hurt,' 709, 713a. 

t;. Kahn, 1202. 

V. Loring, 930. 

V. McLaren, 1767. 

V. Reynolds, 186. 

V. Ruderman, 225. 

V. Tarpley, 449. 

V. Templeton, 1118. 

t;. Tindall, 1343. 

V. Wyman, 1235a. 
Watson's Exrs. v. McLaren, 1797a. 
Watt V. Davison, 319. 

t;. Cans & Co., 1588, 1590, 1592. 

V. Riddle, 1450. 
Watt-Harley-Holmes Hardware Co. v. 

Day, 67. 
Wattrous v. Hallbrook, 96. 
Watts V. Gantt, 249. 
Watzlavzick v. Oppenheimer, 831a. 
Waugh V. Beck, 195a. 

V. Bussell, 1404. 
Way V. Bachelder, 154. 

V. Butterworth, 649, 713, 715 

V. Dunham, 1316. 

V. Lamb, 725. 

V. Richardson, 813. 

V. Smith, 45a, 



References are to paragraphs marked § 

Way V. Sperry, 182. 

V. Towle, 1573. 
Waydell v. Adams, 1729a. 

V. Luer, 1266, 1299. 
Wayland v. Moseley, 1729. 
Way land University v. Boorman, 81, 

Wayman v. Bend, 663a, 

V. Jones, 1312. 

V. Torreyson, 125. 
Waynesburg College Appeal, 24. 
Weader v. First Nat. Bank, 1425, 1436. 
Weakley t;. Bell, 1021, 1024, 1116, 1266. 
Wear v. Lee, 1590. 

Weatherbee Bros. v. Lillybeck, 203. 
Weathered v. Smith, 809. 
Weatherwax v. Paine, 713a. 
Weaver v. Barden, 789a, 832. 

V. Bromley, 1182, 1195. 

V. Camall, 277, 298. 

V. Nixon, 1259. 

V. Pennsylvania, 1000. 

V. Prebster, 1316, 1317, 1319, 1321. 
Webb V. Corbin, 852. 

V. Fairmauer, 617, 1208. 

V. Feathers Estate, 248. 

V. Mears, 454, 481. 

V. Moseley, 193, 802. 

V. Odell, 733. 

V. Simmons, 164. 
Webb City Lumber Co. v. Mining Co., 

Webber v. Webber, 1458. 

V. Williams College, 294. 
Weber v. Orten, 573, 741. 
Webster v. Calden, 728. 

V. Carter, 741, 1181a. 

V. Cobb, 713c, 1777. 

V. De Tastat, 330. 

V. Lee, 728. 

V. Mitchell, 1085, 1334. 

V. Smith, 1219. 

V. Switzer, 271. 

V. Van Steenburgh, 831c. 

V. Vickers, 1217. 

V. Wray, 303. 
Weed V. Bond, 807. 

V. Carpenter, 688c. 
Weeks v. Esler, 32, 32a. 

V. Parsons, 703a. 
Weems v. Shaughnessy, 183a, 726a, 

Weganwega v. Alying, 1544. 
Weggersloffe v. Kerne, 516. 
Wegner v. Biering, 204, 205. 
Wehner v. Bauer, 164. 
Weiand v. State Nat. Bank, 1545, 1567. 
Weidemeyer v. Landon, 1342. 
Weidman v. Symes, 1405. 
Weil V. Carswell, 803. 

Weil V. Corn Exchange Bank, 1596. 

V. Golden, 199. 

r. Ponder, 1714. 

V. Sturgis, 904. 
Weill V. Trosclair, 790. 
Weiner v. Peacock, 205. 
Weinhauer v. Morrison, 504. 
Weinstein v. Nat. Bank, 1370. 
Weinstock v. Bellwood, 22, 23, 1637. 
Weir V. Walmsley, 1375. 
Weis V. Morris Bros., 68a. 
Weismer v. Village of Douglas, 1522, 

Weiss V. Rieser, 790. 
Weisser v. Denison, 288a, 1370. 
Weith V. City of Wilmington, 1500. 
Weitz V. Wolf, 689a. 
Welbom v. Norwood, 196, 196a. 
Welby V. Drake, 1289a. 
Welch V. Alhngton, 1260. 

V. B. C. Taylor Mfg. Co., 1074. 

V. Dameron, 63, 63a. 

V. First Div. St. P. & P. R. Co., 
15096, 1513. 

V. Goodwin, 1369, 1372. 

V. Kinney, 1181a, 1227. 

V. Kukuk, 1317. 

V. Lindo, 576, 700, 1198, 1227. 

V. Mayer, 53.3. 
Welch Co. V. Gillett, 713a. 
Weld V. Gorham, 658. 
Weldon v. ToUman, 1230, 1230a, 

Welland Canal Co. v. Hathaway, 

Wellans v. Ayres, 1446. 
Weller v. Ralston, 1325, 1332a. 
Wellington v. Jackson, 1352a. 
Wellington Nat. Bank v. Robbins, 672, 

Welhnan v. Miner, 1251. 
Wells V. Brigham, 104, 518, 1579. 

V. Davis, 1785&. 

V. Duffy, 777, 819. 

V. Evans, 368. 

V. Giles, 1209. 

V. Hobson, 1219. 

V. Hopkins, 203. 

V. Jackson, 713d, 716. 

V. Masterman, 362, 488. 

t;. Moore, 255, 1184, 

V. Morrison, 1289. 

V. Potter, 203. 

V. Schoonover, 1192, 1200. 

V. Steam Nav. Co., 1740a. 

V. Supervisors, 422, 1529, 1530, 
1532, 1538. 

V. Sutton, 795a. 

V. Tucker, 246. 

V, Wade, 1482. 



References are to paragraphs marked § 

Wells V. Western Union Tel. Co., 493, 

V. Whitehead, 9, 114, 117, 943. 
Welsh V. Barrett, 967, 1057. 

V. German-American Bank, 1370. 

V. Sage, 775. 
Welsh Co., V. Gillette, 868. 
Welton V. Adams, 1478, 1481, 1694, 

Wemple v. Dangerfield, 1039, 1041. 
Wendt V. Ross, 1252. 
Wenman v. Mohawk Ins. Co., 1215. 
Wentworth v. Woods Machine Co., 

Wenzell v. Shultz, 193. 
Were v. Taylor, 137. 
Werner v. Hatton, 1428. 
Wescott V. Stevens, 703, 703a. 
Wessell V. Glenn, 144, 1401. 
Wesson v. Saline County, 1537. 

V. Town of Mt. Vernon, 1537, 1542. 
West V. Banigan, 1266a. 

V. Brison, 1316, 1319. 

V. Brown, 637, 1041. 

V. First Nat. Bank, 399, 399a. 

V. Forman, 50. 

V. Miller, 858. 

V. Penny, 230, 231. 
Westacott v. Handley, 1266a. 
Westbay ;;. Stone, 571, 1317. 
Westberg v. Chicago Lumber & Coal 

Co., 106, 454, 500. 
West Boston Sav. Inst. v. Thomson, 

West Branch Bank v. Fuhner, 323, 327, 

West Coast Co. v. Bradley, 185. 
West London Com. Bank v. Kitson, 

307, 412. 
Westcott V. Patton, 571. 
Westerlo v. De Witt, 24a. 
Western Bank v. Mills, 177. 
Western Boatman's Benevolent Assn. v. 

Wolff, 710, 713. 
Western Bros. Mfg. Co. v. Maverick, 

Western Carolina Bank v. Moore, 80. 
Western Grocer Co. v. Lackman, 418. 
Western Mfg. Co. v. Rogers, 80. 
Western Nat. Bank v. State Bank of 

Rocky Ford, 807. 
Western WTieel Scraper Co. v. Locklin, 

V. McMillen, 300, 418. 

V. Sadilek, 328a, 1039. 
Westervelt, Recr., v. Baker, 240. 
Westfall V. Braley 1676a. 
Westgate v. Healv, 1181a. 
Westinghouse v. Ger. Nat. Bank, 280, 

79oa, 827, 1708y. 

Westman v. Ivrumweide, 68a. 
Westminster Bank v. Wheaton, 1573, 

Westmoreland v. Foster, 271, 795a. 
Weston V. Barker, 747. 

V. Bear River, etc., Min. Co., 

V. Chamberlain, 703. 

V. City of Charleston, 126. 

V. Eight, 24, 1473. 
Westphal v. Ludlow, 1277a. 

V. Nevills, 183. 
West Plains Bank v. Edwards, 

West Plains, etc., Co. v. Sage, 1537. 
Westport Coal Co. v. McPhail, 1741. 
West St. Louis, etc.. Bank v. Shawnee, 

etc.. Bank, 392, 812. 
Wetherall v. Claggett, 967, 969. 

V. Ela, 1198. 
Wetherell v. Joy, 1251. 
Wetherow v. Lord, 180. 
Wethey v. Andrews, 608. 
Wettlaufer v. Baxter, 106, 693. 
Wetumpka, etc., R. Co. v. Bingham, 

Wetzstein v. Joy, 1221. 
Weyerhauser v. Dun, 142, 694. 
Whalen v. Milholland, 24a, 24&. 
Whaley v. Houston, 964, 1596. 

V. Neill, 796, 8156. 
Wharton v. Morris, 56. 

V. Walker, 16366. 
Whateley v. Tricker, 543. 
Wheat V. Arnold, 1418. 

V. Kendall, 1317, 1338. 
Wheatland v. Pry or, 340c. 
Wheatly v. Kutz, 1630. 

V. Strobe, 15, 16a, 19, 35, 1644. 
Wheaton v. Wilmarth, 983. 
Wheeler v. Field, 1058, 1116, 1117, 

V. Gould, 1461, 1618a. 

V. Guild, 1227, 1228, 1233. 

V. Johnson, 1191, 1200. 

V. National Bank, 674. 

t'. Newbold, 833. 

I'. Simmons, 182. 

V. Slocum, 827. 

V. State, 991. 

V. Stone, 18. 

V. Warner, 606, 1215. 

V. Webster, 97, 486, 497, 497&. 

V. Wheeler, 266, 685, 741. 
Wheeless v. Williams, 1209. 
Wheeling Ice & Storage Co., v. Conner, 

Wheelock v. Berkeley, 205, 1221. 

V. Freeman, 79, 1347, 1397, 1409, 



References are to paragraphs marked § 

Whelan v. Swain, 186. 

Whelpdale's Case, 858. 

Whetstone v. Colley, 1247. 

Whidden t;. Seelye, 891. 

Whiddon v. Sprague, 812. 

Whigham v. Hall & Co., 81a. 

Whilden v. Merchants, etc., Bank, 

Whilder v. M. & P. Nat. Bank, 496, 

Whipple V. Fowler, 834. 

V. Stevens, 12156. 
Whistler v. Forster, 706, 745, 1578. 
Whiston V. Stodder, 868. 
Whitaker v. Bank of England, 603. 

V. Brooks, 1326. 

V. Brown, 359. 

V. Edmunds, 165, 814. 

V. Hartford, etc., R. Co., 1514. 

V. Morrison, 1165, 1168. 

V. Pope, 1250. 

V. Whitaker, 187a, 256. 
Whitbcck V. Vanness, 1254. 
Whitcomb v. Mills, 854. 

V. Whiting, 374, 1215a. 

V. Williams, 1260. 
White V. Bannister's Exrs., 1433. 

V. Canfield, 886. 

V. Casanove, 1281a. 

V. Case, 1769a. 

V. Central Nat. Bank, 1361. 

V. Continental Nat. Bank, 533, 540, 
549a, 672, 1358, 1363, 1364, 
1372, 1603. 

V. Curd, 1458a. 

V. Cushing, 41, 50, 149, 150. 

V. Dodge, 769a. 

t;. Doughtery, 1281. 

V. Eiseman, 1626. 

V. Ford, 1431. 

V. Goldsberg, 248. 

V. Haas, 1379, 1418. 

V. Harris, 1373a, 1398. 

V. Hart, 173. 

V. Heylman, 196, 743. 

V. Hopkins, 1307, 1335a. 

V. Howard, 1267. 

V. Howland, 1780. 

V. Kebling, 1233. 

V. Kehloe, 1227. 

V. Ledwick, 108. 

t;. Madison, 307. 

V. McNett, 248. 

V. Nat. Bank, 698, 698a, 698c. 

V. Palmer, 1231. 

V. Richmond, 56. 

V. Rosencrantz, 497a. 

V. Savage, 790. 

V. Shepherd, 1385. 

f. Smith, 41, 48^ 81c. 

WTiite V. Springfield Bank, 827, 831c, 

V. Stoddard, 578, 994, 1125, 1126, 

V. Story, 248. 

V. Thompson, 262. 

V. Trumbull, 1251. 

V. Tudor, 370a, 373. 

V. Vermont, etc., R. Co., 148, 1487, 
1496, 1499, 1500. 

V. Weaver, 713c, 728. 

V. Weir, 1739. 

V. WoodrufT, 182. 
Whiteford v. Burckmyer, 1003, 1191, 

Whitehead v. Emmerich, 1398. 

V. Heidenheimer, 865. 

V. Purdy, 7956. 

V. Walker, 724a, 725, 1436. 
Whitehouse v. Hanson, 712, 716. 
Whitelocke v. Musgrove, 1218. 
Whitely v. Allen, 1145. 
Whiteman v. Childress, 56. 

V. Sheckle, 125. 
Whiteside v. United States, 440. 
Whitesides v. Northern Bank, 1378. 
White Water Valley Canal Co. v. 

Vallette, 382. 
Whitfield V. Savage, 1077. 
Whiting V. Citv Bank, 1038. 
Whitley v. Foy, 336. 
Whitlock V. Manciet, 1373a. 

V. Underwood, 88, 604. 
Whitman v. Farmers Bank, 983, 987, 

V. Leonard, 370, 371, 375. 
Whitmer v. Frye, 1385, 1410a, 1412. 
Whitmire v. Montgomery, 70. 
Whitmore v. ElUson, 1317. 

V. Nickerson, 94. 
Whitnack v. Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co., 

Whitney v. Abbot, 1104. 

V. Bunnell, 533. 

V. Clary, 164. 

V. Dutch, 231. 

V. ElUott Nat. Bank, 20, 51. 

V. Esson, 1625. 

V. First Nat. Bank, 286a. 

V. Going, 1329. 

V. Groot, 1755. 

V. McLean, 1734c. 

V. Merchants Union Express Co., 

V. Nat. Bank, 731. 

V. Snyder, 848, 850. 

V. Spearman, 721. 

V. Wenman, 1713a. 
Whitney Nai;. Bank v. Cannon, 784, 
Whitning v. City Bank, 1038. 



References are to paragraphs marked § 

Whitnore v. Nickerson, 94. 

Whitridge v. Rider, 1116. 

Whitsett V. People's Nat. Bank, 1378. 

Whitt V. Blount, 203. 

Whittaker v. Brown, 357. 

V. Kuhn, 725. 
Whitteker v. Charleston Gas Co., 833, 

Whitten v. Bank of Fincastle, 262, 289. 
Whittenhall v. Korber, 1198. 
Whitter v. Eager, 187. 
Whittier v. Graff am, 1123. 

V. Hayden, 1195. 
Whittle V. Skinner, 1289a. 
Whittle & Harrel v. National Bank, 

142, 143a. 
Whitwell V. Crehore, 725a. 

V. Johnson, 658. 

V. Winslow, 53, 80. 

V. Wright, 260. 
Whitworth v. Adams, 191, 750, 751, 

752, 753, 756, 757, 760, 762a, 763. 
Wickerman v. Evans, 193. 
Wickersham v. Jarvis, 1198, 1229. 
Wickershara Banking Co. v. Nicholas, 

316, 317, 680, 689. 
Wickham v. Evans, 1230. 

V. Grant, 193. 

V. Wickham, 314. 
Wickhizer v. Bolin, 65, 68a. 
Wricks V. Mitchell, 249. 
Widger v. Baxter, 182, 185. 
Widgery v. Munroe, 658, 1144, 1146. 
Widoe V. Webb, 204. 
Widsmith v. Tracy, 796. 
Wieman v. Anderson, 250. 
Wiener v. Peacock, 205. 
Wierbach v. First Nat. Bank, 210. 
Wiffen V. Roberts, 756. 
Wigging V. Bush, 775. 

V. Damrell, 747. 
Wiggins V. Burkham, 1370. 

V. Stevens, 802, 1612a. 
Wiggins Ferry Co. v. Chicago & Alton 

R. Co., 1740. 
Wiggle V. Thomasson, 1209, 1212. 
Wigglesworth v. Steers, 214. 
Wight V. Citizens' Bank, 1219. 
Wilbur V. Jeep, 1435a. 

V. Jernegan, 1260. 

V. Lynde, 282. 

V. Selden, 1057. 

V. Williams, 1311. 
Wilbum V. Greer, 56. 
Wilcox V. Aultman, 1227. 

V. Draper, 1785, 17856. 

t;. Roath, 231. 

V. Routh, 998. 

t;. Tenant, 722. 

f. Tetherington, 803, 850. 

Wilcox Organ Co. v. Lasley, 1245. 
Wilcoxen v. Reynolds, 87. 
Wilcoxon V. City of Bluffton, 1524. 
Wild V. Bank of Passmaquody, 388, 

392, 687. 
Wilde V. Armsley, 1418. 

V. Sheridan, 896. 
Wilder v. Cowels, 740a. 

V. De Wolf, 130, 663o. 

V. Seelye, 1480. 

V. Weakley, 210. 
Wilderman v. Donnelly, 177. 
Wilders v. Stevens, 714a, 1202a. 
Wildes V. Savage, 551, 562, 1785, 

1786a, 1788. 
Wildman, Ex parte, 1203. 

V. Ban Gelder, 800a. 
Wilds V. Nahant Bank, 1673a. 
Wildsmith v. Tracy, 796. 
Wilensky v. Morrison, 769o, 
Wiles V. Robinson, 1260. 
Wiley V. First Nat. Bank, 286a. 

V. Knight, 802. 
Wilkes V. Jacks, 1083. 

V. Pope, 156. 
Wilkes County v. Coler, 1537. 
Wilkins v. Com. Bank, 998. 

V. Jadis, 602, 1160. 

V. Usher, 7816, 782, 831a. 
Wilkinson v. Adams, 982. 

V. Cook, 172. 

V. Jeffers, 725. 

V. Johnson, 528, 533, 549, 1257. 

V. Lutwidge, 533. 

;;. Searcy, 859. 
Wilks V. Robinson, 1685. 
Willard v. Crook, 386, 672, 790. 

V. Nelson, 847, 848. 
Will A. Watkin Music Co. v. Basham, 

Willenberger v. Spalding, 586. 
Willetv. Young, 271. 
Willets V. Hatch, 1713. 

V. Paine, 1587. 

V. Phoenix Bank, 1571, 1603. 
Willett V. Shephard, 1418. 
Willey V. Greenfield, 432. 
William Mercantile Co. v. Fussy, 1734, 
WiUiams v. Ayres, 129, 1438. 

V. Bacon, 303. 

V. Baker, 76, 724a. 

V. Bank, 712. 

V. Bank of U. S. 1005, 1016, 1022, 
1117, 1119. 

V. Brashera, 1076. 

V. Brimhall, 1428. 

V. Brobst, 1105, 1110. 

V. Brown, 1587. 

V. Cheney, 808. 

V. Costello, 1623, 



References are to paragraphs marked § 

Williams v. Drexel, 538, 1365. 
V. Duanesburg, 1557. 
V. Everett, 19. 
V. First Nat. Bank 183. 
V. First Nat. Bank of Syracuse, 

t;. Floyd, 112. 
V. Gait, 63a. 
V. Gerbor, 1236a. 
V. Germaine, 527, 529, 531. 
V. Gilchrist, 1425. 
V. Harris, 398, 403. 
V. Haynes, 885. 
V. Holt, 812. 
V. Hoogewerff, 637. 
V. James, 1205, 1241. 
V. Jensen, 1389. 
V. Jones, 884, 1203. 
V. Keyes, 834, 1233. 
V. Matthews, 369a, 572, 997, 1049. 
V. Moore, 230. 
V. Nat. Bank of Baltimore, 748, 

824, 1230, 1266. 
V. Neely, 203. 
V. Nichols, 186. 
V. Ogg, 710, 1339. 
V. Paintsville National Bank, 90a, 

571, 714, 999a, 1326. 
V. Pelly, 1233. 

V. People's Bank of Summitt, 1338. 
V. Potter, 698. 

v. Putnam, 909, 910, 928, 960. 

V. Robbins, 303, 305. 

V. Robinson, 1165. 

V. Scott, 1319. 

V. Sims, 55. 

V. Smith, 824, 831c, 832a, 1676a, 
1679a, 1696. 

V. Stormsj 751. 

V. Tishomingo Sav. Inst., 672, 677. 

i;. Thomas, 357. 

V. Union Bank, 1149. 

V. Urmston, 249. 

V. Wade, 899, 900. 

V. Walker, 196a. 

V. Wallbridge, 366, 369. 

V. Waring, 1379. 

V. WilUams, 67a, 1760. 

V. Winans, 490, 491. 
Williams, Admr., v. Planters & Mechan- 
ics Nat. Bank, 640. 
Williams Bros. v. Rosenbaum, 1092, 

Williams National Bank v. Groton 

Mfg. Co., 262. 
Williamsburg Sav. Bank v. Town of 

Solon, 1421, 15096, 1513. 
Williamsburgh Trust Co. v. Turn 

Suuden, 165"^ 

Williamson v. Albany & Salem R. Co., 
V. City of Keokuk, 1538. 
V. Doby, 724a. 
V. Harrison, 225. 
V. Johnson, 361, 688a, 1613. 
V. Massey, 448. 
I'. Smith, 86a, 1244. 
V. Watts, 225. 
Williamsport v. Commonwealth, 420, 

William Thompson Co. v. Williams, 

Willings V. Consequa, 1296. 
Willis V. Barrett, 100. 
V. Barron, 354. 
V. Chowning, 1753. 
V. Cresey, 1478. 
V. French, 669a, 672. 
V. Green, 455, 999a. 
V. Heath, 800a. 
V. Sanger Bros., 205. 
V. Smyth, 24a. 
Willison V. Pattison, 217, 678a. 
Willman Mercantile Co. v. Fussy, 

Willoughby v. Ball, 80, 81c, 189. 
V. Moulton, 74. 
V. Willoughby, 103. 
Wills V. Booth, 609, 611, 996. 
V. Hurst, 1312. 
V. Wilson, 1401. 
Willsey v. Hutchins, 248. 
Willson V. Clements, 550. 
Wilmington Bank v. Houston, 689a. 
Wilmington, etc., R. Co. v. King, 87. 
Wilse V. Whitaker, 80. 
Wilson V. Bank, 341. 

V. Barnard, 1219, 1387. 

V. Barthrop, 306. 

V. Beardsley, 1799. 

V. Black, 719. 

V. Carey, 123. 

V. Carter, 7956. 

V. City of Shreveport, 1530, 1538. 

V. Clements, 551, 552, 558. 

V. Codman, 700, 1431. 

V. Crosnoe, 176. 

V. Dawson, 3266. 

V. Ellsworth, 174. 

V. Forder, 370, 372a. 

V. Gordon, 357. 

V. Harris, 1419. 

V. Hayes, 1352a, 1418. 

V. Hendee, 704, 714. 

V. Holmes, 698. 

V. Jamieson, 1401. 

V. Keedey, 1429. 

V. Kelso, 819. 

V, Kieffer, 1266. 



References are to paragraphs marked § 

Wilson V. Knox County, 10a. 

V. Lazier, 165, 198, 808, 814, 815, 
817, 880, 895. 

V. McEachern, 1578. 

V. McVey, 1310. 

V. Mechanics' Sav. Bank, 726a. 

V. Mitchell, 987. 

t;. Mo. Pac. Ry. Co., 1741. 

V. National Fowler Bank, 107, 
795a, 812. 

V. Pauley, 769a, 789. 

V. Peck, 986. 

V. Powers, 68a, 1317a. 

V. Ray, 194. 

V. Richards, 356, 960. 

V. Riddler, 775. 

V. Sec. Nat. Bank, 802. 

V. Senier, 1131, 1135. 

V. Swabey, 987, 988, 990. 

V. Smith, 344. 

V. Stubbs, 100. 

V. Tolson, 698d, 1181a. 

V. Tricker, 185. 

V. White, 1311, 1326, 1339. 

V. WiUiman, 1209. 
Wilson County v. Nat. Bank, 99, 1496. 
Wilson Sewing Machine Co. v. Moreno, 

V. Spears, 1200. 
Wimberly v. Windham, 292. 
Winans v. Gibbs & Starett Mfg. Co., 

Winchell v. Carey, 69. 
Winchester v. Hackley, 1431. 
Winders v. Sperry, 183, 185. 
Windham v. Doles, 207. 
Windham Bank v. Norton, 598, 1048, 

1067, 1068, 1068a. 
Windham Coimty Bank v. Kendall, 

Windhorst v. Bergendahl, 7136, 1317. 
Windsor Sav. Bank v. McMahon, 10a, 

Winer v. Bank of Blytheville, 93, 1227, 

Wines v. State Bank of Hamilton, 1219. 
Winfrey v. Ragan, 65, 164. 
Wing V. Cooper, 131. 

V. Ford, 198, 775, 815. 

V. Gluck, 443a. 

V. Terry, 95. 
Wingate v. Blalock, 80, 1338. 
V. Mechanics' Bank, 341. 
Winkler v. Magdeburg, 833. 
Winn V. City of Macon, 1523. 

V. Thomas, 194. 
Winnebago County State Bank v. 

Hustel, 1092, 1312. 
Winship t- . Bank of U. S., 368. 
V. Merchants Nat. Bank, 812, 

Winslow V. Everett Nat. Bank, 1362. 

V. Norton, 1730a. 
Winsted Bank v. Webb, 1260, 1266a. 
Winston v. Farrow, 1339. 

V. Yeargin, 1311. 
Winter v. Anson, 1281a. 

V. Hutchins, 775. 
Winter & Loeb v. Pool, 815, 1395, 1417. 
Wintermute v. Post, 513, 545. 

V. Torrent, 698d. 
Winters v. Armstrong^ 336. 
Wintersmith v. Post, 508. 
Winthrop v. Pepoon, 930. 
Wintle V. Crowther, 351, 364. 
Winton v. Saidler, 1217. 
Wintons v. Westfeldt, 800a. 
Winward v. Lincoln, 868. 
Wipperman v. Hardy, 1251, 1252, 

1259, 1260, 1262, 1267. 
Wirt V. Stubblefield, 199. 
Wirth V. Roche, 204. 
Wisconsin M. & F. Fire Ins. Co. v. 

Bank of British N. A., 17346. 
Wisconsin Trust Co. v. Chapman, 262. 
Wisconsin Yearly Meeting of Freewill 

Baptists V. Babler, 795c. 
Wisdom V. Becker, 262. 
Wisdom & Levy v. Bille, 971. 
Wise V. Charlton, 51a. 

V. Miller, 1785a. 

V. Prouse, 1203. 

V. Rogers, 448, 1726. 
Wisegarver v. Yinger, 193, 769o, 1312. 
Wiseman v. Chiapella, 1118. 

V. Lyman, 1300. 
Wislezenus v. O'Fallon, 182. 
Wisner v. Bardwell, 204. 

V. First Nat. Bank, 4976, 499a, 
500, 926, 1600. 

V. Schopp, 1623. 
Withall V. Masterman, 1321. 
Witherow v. Slayback, 671, 710, 711, 

Withers v. Hart, 1417. 
Witherspoon v. Musehnan, 62. 
Witkowski v. Maxwell & Peal, 241, 779, 

Witmer Bros. v. Weild, 68. 
Witt V. Williams, 775. 
Witte V. Derby Fishing Co., 410. 

V. Weinberg, 1259. 

V. Williams, 753, 7816. 
Wittenberg v. Spalding, 581. 
Wittich V. First Nat. Bank, 1600. 
Witty V. Mut. Life Ins. Co., 86a. 
Wizig V. Beisert, 666, 719. 
Wm. Deering Co. v. Veal, 185. 
Wofford V. Board of Police, 1478. 
Wohl V. First Nat. Bank, 800a. 
Wolf V. Jewett, 311. 


References are to paragraphs marked § 

Wolf V. Koppel, 314. 
V. Madden, 1309. 
V. Myers, 1729. 
V. Shelton, 725. 
V. Troxell Estate, 196a. 
Wolfboro Loan & Banking Co. v. Rol- 
lins, 1181a, 1321, 1339. 
Wolf Co. V. Bank of Commerce, 386, 

Wolfe V. Jewett, 1144. 
Wolfersberger v. Bucher, 1432. 
Wolff v. Bluhn, 177. 
A\'olford V. Andrews, 929, 1095a. 

V. Rusk, 725. 
Wolfurt V. Pittsburg, etc., R. Co., 

Wolke ;;. Kuhne, 93. 
WoUenleber v. Ketterlinus, 1079, 1081. 
Wolstenholme v. Smith, 1312. 
Wolverman v. Bell, 1377. 
Wolz V. Parker, 159. 
Wood V. Babbitt, 769a. 

V. Bodwell, 1260. 

V. Boylston Nat. Bank, 334&, 336, 

V. Brewer, 305. 

V. Brown, 1158. 

V. Brush, 742, 1428. 

V. Bullens, 1247. 

V. Callaghan, 995, 1054, 1251. 

V. Corl, 622, 919, 1031. 

V. Drury, 112. 

V. Elwood, 688c. 

V. Flanery, 68, 162. 

V. Gibbs, 898. 

V. Goodridge, 253. 

V. Guarantee, etc.. Deposit Co., 
1222, 1505. 

V. Holbeck, 366. 

V. Jefferson County Bank, 1305, 

V. McKean, 782. 

V. McMeans, 1084. 

V. Merchants' etc., Co., 326a. 

V. Mullen, 625. 

V. Myton. 130. 

V. Newkirk, 1317a. 

V. Pugh, 523, 524, 1258. 

V. Railway Co., 1739. 

V. Skelley, 1413. 

V. Starling, 803. 

V. Steele, 1373, 1373a, 1376. 

V. Surrell, 80. 

V. Tomlin, 268. 

V. Watson, 979a. 

V. Wheeler, 867. 

V. Wilder, 218. 

V. Wood 999a. 
Woodall V. People's Nat. Bank, 27, 50, 

769a, 784. 

Woodall & Son v. People's Nat. Bank, 

Woodbridge v. Brigham, 656. 

V. First Nat. Bank, 1612a. 

V. Spooner, 80, 180. 
Woodburn v. Woodburn, 24, 1623. 
Woodbury v. Moulton, 299. 

V. Roberts, 41. 
Woodcock V. Houldsworth, 1021, 

Wood, etc.. Machine Co. v. Oliver, 

Woodford v. Dorwin, 63, 65, 66, 371a. 

V. Whiteley, 1482. 
Woodhouse v. Simmons, 1215b. 
Woodhull V. Holmes, 815 
Woodin t'. Foster, 656. 

V. Frayze, 1596. 
Woodman v. Boothy, 713a. 

V. Chapman, 258. 

V. Churchill, 726a, 803. 

V. Eastman, 1131, 1134, 1135. 

V. Thurston, 1090, 1092a, 1094. 
Wood Mowing & Reaping Machine Co. 

V. Land, 1759. 
Wood River Bank v. First Nat. Bank, 

327, 341, 617, 926, 1600. 
Woodruff V. American Road Mach. Co., 

V. Heniman, 204. 

V. Hill, 879, 889, 906. 

V. Merchants I3ank, 617, 622, 
1571o, 1572. 

V. Miss., 57, 60, 1245, 1246a, 1247, 

V. Monroe, 1351, 1352 

V. Plant, 1598. 

V. Scruggs, 1565. 

V. Trapnall, 447, 1725. 
Wood's Appeal, 1708^. 
Woods V. Armstrong, 197, 198. 

V. Bailey, 1281, 1281&. 

V. Finley, 80. 

V. Lawrence Coimty, 1493, 1494, 

V. North, 62. 

V. Ridley, 128, 130. 

V. Schroeder, 1652. 

V. Sherman, 1251. 

V. Thiedeman, 1734d. 

V. Viozca, 725. 

V. Wilder, 217, 218, 1060. 

V. Woods, 713a, 1266. 
Woods & Son V. Carl, 199a. 
Woodson V. Beck, 81d. 

V. Moody, 1788. 

V. Wood, 369&, 371, 373. 
Woods Sons Co. v. Schaefer, 81c. 
Woodstock Bank v. Downer, 159. 
Woodsum V. Cole, 782, II8I0. 



References are to paragraphs marked § 

WoodsviUe Guaranty Sav. Bank v. 

Rogers, 710, 713a. 
Woodthrope v. Lawes, 979, 983, 991, 

Woodward v. Foster, 713o, 719, 720a. 

V. Lowry, 1092. 

V. Row, 449. 

V. Severance, 703. 

V. Sup. of Calhoun County, 1524, 

V. Walton, 1311. 
Woodworth v. Anderson, 1385, 1415. 

V. Bank of America, 152, 1383, 
1397, 1401. 

V. Barnett, 200. 

V. Huntoon, 803. 

V. Veitch, 161. 
Woodworth & Co. v. Carroll, 832. 
Wookey v. Pole, 145, 663, 1504. 
Woolen V. Uhich, 44, 852. 

V. Whitacre, 852. 

V. Wise, 852. 
Woolcy V. Clark, 261. 

V. Clements, 627. 

V. Lyon, 911. 
Woolf V. Clark, 795a. 

V. Hamilton, 197. 
Woolfolk V. Duncan, 195a. 
Woolidge V. Wiggin, 703. 
Woolley V. Constant, 148. 

V. Sergeant, 35. 
Woolsey v. Crawford, 1449. 
Woolwine v. Storrs, 157. 
Wooly V. Lyon, 1021. 
Woonsocket Instn. for Saving v. Ballou, 

Wooster v. Jenkins, 187. 
Wootem V. Maullsby, 728. 

V. Outlaw, 1220. 
Worcester v. Eaton, 858. 
Worcester County Bank v. Dorchester, 
etc., Bank, 775, 837, 1680. 

V. Wells, 896. 
Worcester County Inst., etc., v. Davis, 

Worcester Nat. Bank v. Cheney, 829a, 

830, 832. 
Worden v. Dodge, 50. 

V. Nourse, 992, 993. 

I'. Salter, 710. 
Worden Grocer Co. v. Blanding, 52. 
Wordon r. Bemis, 1732. 
Work V. Tatman, 1572, 1574. 
Workingmen's Banking Co. v. Blell, 

1147a, 1149. 
Workman v. Wright, 1351, 1352a. 
Works V. Hershey, 44. 
Worley v. Waldran, 657. 
Wormer & Sons v. Waterloo Agricul- 
tural Works, 183. 

Wormley v. Lowry, 832. 
Worrall v. Gheen, 1408. 
Worsham v. Goar, 1326. 

V. State, 837. 
Worster v. Forbush, 358a. 
Wortendike v. Cowels, 740a. 

V. Mechan, 197, 198, 819. 
Worth V. Case, 46, 180. 
Worthington v. Cowles, 731, 7316. 

V. Railroad Co., 394. 

V. Schuylkill Electric Co., 386. 
Wray v. Miller, 47. 
Wren v. Pearce, 1764. 
Wright V. Andrews, 1128. 

V. Bayless, 1966. 

V. Boyd, 1188. 

V. Brosseau, 368. 

V. Byrne, 185, 271. 

V. Douglas, 1669. 

V. Dyer, 1786. 

V. Forgy, 74. 

V. Gansevort Bank, 1236. 

V. Hancock, 1472. 

V. Hanna, 1266a. 

V. Hart, 56. 

V. Irwin, 48, 51a. 

V. Kinney, 427. 

V. Laing, 1252. 

V. Liesenfield, 1093. 

V. Maidstone, 1475, 1482. 

V. Miss. Valley Trust Co., 782, 

V. Morse, 715. 

V. Parvis & Williams Co., 247, 

V. Reed, 1672a. 

V. Remington, 80. 

V. Robinson & Co., 1249, 1310, 

V. Shawcross, 1043. 

V. Smith, 67. 

V. Steel, 231. 

V. Traver, 60, 62. 

V. Waller, 214. 

V.Wright, 25, 743, 1259, 1472, 
Wright Investment Co. v. Friscoe 

Realty Co., 777. 
Wrightman v. PuUam, 371. 
Wrightson v. Pullan, 370. 
Wroten v. Armat, 769. 
Wroxon v. Macoboy, 725a, 726. 
W. S. Broom & Co. v. Harrah, 185. 
Wuest V. Moehrig, 203. 
Wulschner v. Sells, 667a. 
Wyant v. Pattorf, 62a. 
Wyat V. Campbell, 808. 
Wyatt V. Bulmer, 198. 

V. Dufrene, 1317. 

V. Evias, 1966. 



References are to paragraphs marked § 

Wyatt V. Hodson, 12156. 

V. Wallace, 199a. 

V. Walton Guano Co., 248. 
Wyckoff V. Anthony, 3346. 
Wyer v. Dorchester, etc., Bank, 775, 

Wyke V. Rogers, 1322. 
Wylie V. Bryce, 509. 

V. Missouri Pac, R. Co., 1499a, 
WyUie v. Pollen, 802. 
Wyman v. Adams, 612, 1113a. 

V. Colorado Nat. Bank, 812, 823. 

V. Ft. Dearborn Nat. Bank, 326a, 

V. Robbina, 1437. 

V. Whitehouse, 241. 

V. Yeomans, 1377. 
Wyman, Recr., v. Williams, 1341. 
Wynn v. Alden, 979. 
Wynne v. Callander, 206. 

V. Jackson, 914. 

V. Raikes, 490, 491, 503, 552, 563. 

V. Whesenant, 204. 

Yae V. Yandell, 1306a. 
Yakima Nat. Bank v. Knipe, 573. 
Yakima Valley Bank v. McAllister, 850. 
Yale V. Dederer, 248. 

V. Wood, 11. 
Yancy v. Field, 24, 25. 
Yaney v. Mauck, 1281a. 
Yarnell v. Anderson, 1260. 
Yarwood v. Trusts & Guarantee Co., 

Yates t^.Bell, 19, 16366. 

V. Donaldson, 1295, 1335a. 

V. Goodwin, 707a, 970. 

V. Groves, 16a, 23. 

V. Hall, 221. 

V. Mead, 1343. 

V. Shepardson, 1646. 
Yatesville Banking Co. v. Fourth Nat, 

Bank, 1372. 
Yazos & M. V. R. Co. v. G. W. Bent & 

Co., 1733a. 
Yeager v. Farwell, 1108, 1147, 1158. 
Yeagley v. Webb, 849a. 
Yeatman v. Cullen, 895, 899. 

V. Mattison, 176, 185. 
Yeaton v. Bank of Alexandria, 189. 

V. Berney, 643. 
Yegen v. Northern Pac. Ry. Co., 1728. 
Yellowstone Nat. Bank v. Gagnon, 832, 

Yenney v. Central City Bank, 1233. 
Yeoman v. Lane, 790, 850. 
Yerker v. Salomon, 195a. 

Yndart v. Den, 1458a. 
Yocum V. Smith, 844, 1406. 
York V. Jones, 1390. 

V. Pearson, 185, 186, 1328. 
York County v. Central R. Co., 1729a. 
Yorkshire Banking Co. v. Beatson, 

Youle V. Fosha, 775, 777, 789a. 
Young V. Adams, 737, 1675. 

V. Baker, 1378. 

V. Bennett, 954. 

r;. Bryan, 926, 968. 

V. Chew, 354. 

V. Clarendon Township, 1520. 

V. Cole, 733, 734o, 1533. 

V. Durgin, 1022, 1027. 

V. Gaus, 808. 

V. Glover, 688, 690. 

V. Grote, 540, 842a, 1363, 1405, 

V. Harris, 879. 

V. Hayes, 68a, 184. 

V. Hudson, 392. 

V. Leham, 540. 

V. Lehman, 1363, 1369, 1405. 

V. Lowry, 819, 887. 

V. McFadden, 247. 

V. Murray, 1188. 

V. Sehon, 1. 

t;. Shepard's Estate, 186. 

V. Ward, 1184. 

V. Warner, 1203. 

V. Wood, 1281a. 
Youngling v. Kohlkass, 1472. 
Youngs i-. Lee, 181, 184, 827, 831c, 832, 
832a, 979, 983. 

V. Perry, 400. 
Youse V. McCreary, 749. 
Yowell V. Dodd, 406. 
Yowell & Williams v. Walker, 164. 

Zabriskei v. Spieknan, 752. 

Zahm V. First Nat. Bank, 1769. 

Zaloom V. Ganim, 1593. 

Zander v. New York Security & Trust 

Co., 1706. 
Zapalac v. Zapp, 1338. 
Zeeler v. Jordan, 24, 26. 
Zeis V. Potter, 7266. 
Zelle V. Ger. Sav. Inst., 1637. 
Zeller v. Jordan, 24, 26. 

V. Leiter, 195a. 
Zellner v. Cleveland, 271. 
Zent r. Hart, 12156. 
Ziegfried v. Stein, 1290. 
Zielian v. Baltimore Plate Ice Co., 

Zilke V. Woodley, 23. 

References are to paragraphs marked § 


Zimbleman v. Finnegan, 68a, 184, 185. 
Zimmer v. Chew, 11926, 1196, 1229. 
Zimmerman v. Adee, 80. 

V. Anderson, 61. 

V. Raster, 1316. 

V. Rote, 1405, 1407, 1409. 
Zinc V. Dick, 814a, 815. 

Zollman v. Jackson Trust & Savings 
Bank, 51a, 769a, 827. 

V. San Francisco, 318. 
Zollner v. Moffit, 959, 962, 969, 986, 

Zuendt v. Doemer, 205. 
Zwinger v. Samuda. 1713. 








§ 1. An instrument is called ncKutiahle when the loRai title to 
the instrument itself, and to the whole amount of money expressed 
upon its face, may be transferred from one to another by indorse- 
ment and delivery by the holder, or by delivery only. The pecul- 
iarities which attach to negotiable paper are the growth of time, 
and were acceded for the benefit of trade. 

It was a rule of the common law of England, that a chose in ac- 
tion — by which is meant a claim which the holder would be driven 
to his action at law to recover — could not be assigned to a stranger, 
our forefathers conceiving that if claims and debts could be assigned, 
''pretended titles might be granted to great men, whereby right 
might be trodden down and the weak oppressed, which the common 
law forbiddeth." ^ The first relaxation of this rule was made in 
respect to bills of exchange, and was gradually extended to notes 
and other securities, until the rule itself disappeared. 

But while all choses in action are now transferable, the negotiable 
instrument is the only species which carries by transfer a clear title 
and a full measure; and like an instrument under seal imports a con- 

1. Coke Litt. 214a, Chitty on BUls {*7j, 9; Edwards on Billa, 55. 


sideratioii. It has therefore three peculiar and distinguishing charac- 

First. Respecting thi- title. If a horse, or other personal chattel, 
or a nonnegotiable instrument, he lost or stolen, no purchaser, how- 
ever innocent or ignorant of the loss or theft, can acquire title against 
the true owner, who may at any place, and at any time, identify his 
property and reclaim it. But if a neg(jtiable instrument be lost or 
stolen, and transferred by the finder thief to a third person in the 
usual course of business, before maturity, and for a valuable consider- 
ation, the perso^i so accjuiring it may hold it against the world. 

Second. Respecting the amount. If a bond or nonnegotiable 
note be assigned, the a.ssignee steps into the shoes of the assignor, 
and if the bond or note Ikus been paitl, or is subject to any counter- 
claim or set-off against the original maker, they attach to and in- 
cumber it into whosesoever hands it may fall. But a negotiable 
paper carries the right to the whole amount it secures on its face, 
and is subject to none of the defenses which might have been made 
between the original or intervening parties, against anyone who 
acquired it in the usual course of business before maturity. It is 
a circulating credit like the currency of the country, antl, before 
maturity, the genuineness ami solvency of the parties are alone to 
be considered in determining its value. It has been fitly termed 
"a courier without luggage." - 

Third. Respecting the consideration. By the common law, an 
instrument under seal im|K)rts a consideration, by virtue of the 
solemn ceremony of its execution; and no other nonnegotiable instru- 
ment does. A bill of exchange, however, by the usages of merchants, 
also prima facie imports a consideration ; and now by statute promis- 
sory notes of a certain kind are placed on the same footing. As be- 
tween immediate parties, the true state of the case may be shown, 
and the presumption of consideration rebutted. But when a bill of 
exchange or negotiable note has passed to a bona fide holder for value, 
and before maturity, no want or failure of consideration can be 
shown. Its defects perish with its transfer; while, if the instrument 
be not a bill of exchange or negotiable note, they adhere to it in 
whosesoever hands it may go. 


2. Overton v. Tyler, 3 Barr. 346, Gibson, C. J.; Brown v. First Nat. Bank, 
103 Ala. 123. 15 So. 435. 

3. Young V. Sehon, 53 W. Va. 127. 44 S. E. 136, 62 L. R. A. 499, 97 .-Vm. St. 
Rep. 070, quoting the text. 


§ la. The term "negotiable," in its enlarged signification, is used 
to describe any wTitten security which may be transferred by in- 
dorsement and delivery, or by deliver^' merely, so as to vest in the 
indorsee the legal title, and thus enable him to bring a suit thereon 
in his owTi name. But in a strictly commercial classification, and as 
the term is twhnically used, it applies only to those instruments 
which, like bills of exchange, not only carrj- the legal title with them 
by indorsement, or deliven,', but carr>' as well, when transferred before 
maturity, the right of the transferee to demand the full amounts 
which their faces call for. '\\ssignable" is the more appropriate 
term to describe bonds, and ordinary- notes, or notes of hand as they 
are most commonly called; as "negotiable" is the more fitting term 
to descril)e the peculiar instnmients of conmierce.* 

§ 2. Bills of exchange were probably the first instruments for 
the payment of money that were accorded a negotiable quality, 
though promissor>' notes, being simpler in form, were doubtless 
used as evidences of debt before bills of exchange came in vogue 
among merchants. Certainly these two securities were recognized as 
negotiable instruments Ix'fore any other paper repres^^-ntatives of 
money or property passed currently from hand to hand in like manner 
as money; and from them, as fruitful parents, have sprung all the 
varieties of negotiable instruments now knov^Ti. Of bills and notes, 
therefore, we shall first speak, and after they have been sufficiently 
treated of, the other varieties of negotiable instruments will receive 
due attention. 

§ 3. As to the origin and history of bills and notes. — The numer- 
ous commentators on the law of bills of exchange and promissor>- 
notes have generally enriched their pages \i-ith the results of their 
classic and antiquarian researches into the origin and history- of those 
instruments. But notwithstanding the number and the diligence of 
the laborers in this interesting field of inquir\', it cannot be now 
stated, with any degree of certainty, by whom they were invented, or 
when they were first used. In respect to bills of exchange, it is said 
by Pothier, that there is no vestige of them among the Romans, or of 
any contract of exchange; for though it appears that Cicero directed 
one of his friends at Rome, who had money to receive at Athens, to 

4. Odell v. Gray. 15 Mo. 342: Interoaiional Bank v. German Bank, 71 Mo. 183; 
Cronin v. Patrick Co.. 4 Hughes. 529; Provident Tr. Co. v. Mercer Co., 170 U. S. 
e06, IS Sup. Ct- Rep. 788, text died; De Haae v. Dibert. 17 C. C A. 79, 70 Fed. 227. 


cause it to be paid to his son at that pUivv, ami that friend accordingly 
wrote to one of his debtors at Athens, and ordered him to pay a sum 
of money to Cicero's son, yet, it is observed, that this mode amounted 
to nothing more than a mere order or mandate, and wiuj not that 
species of negotiation which is conducted through the medium of a 
bill of exchange.^ 

Chancellor Kent seems to think that a pa.ssage in one of the plead- 
ings of Isocrates indicates the use of bills of exchange amongst tlui 
Greeks," but Story considers that the transaction referred to was 
little more than the very case alluded to by Cicero, and put in the 
Roman law.' Sir William Blackstone, remarking upon this subject, 
says: "This method is said to have been brought into general use by 
the Jews and Lombards when banished for their usury and other 
vices, in order the more easily to draw their effects out of France and 
England into those countries in which they had chosen to reside. 
But the invention of it wa.s a little earlier; for the Jews were banished 
out of (Juienne in 1287, and out of England in 1200; and in 1230 the 
use of paper credit was introduced into the Mogul Empire in China." ** 
And Chitty says: "()th(>r a\ithors have attributed the invention to 
the Florentines, when, being driven out of their country by the faction 
of the Gebelings, they estal)lished themselves at Lyons and other 
towns. On the whole, how(>ver, ther(> is no certainty on the subject, 
though it seems cl(>ar foreign bills were in use in the fourteenth cen- 
tury, as appears from a Venetian law of that period ; and an inference 
drawn from the statute 5 Rich. II, stat. 1, chap. 2, warrants the con- 
clusion that foreign bills were introduced into this country previously 
to the year 138L" ^ Macpherson, in his "Annals of Commerce," 
speaks of letters of credit being employed by King John to procure 
advancements to his agents in Rome as early as 1202.'° And there is 
reason to believe that bills of exchange were known in England as 
early as L307, since in that year King Edward I ordered certain 
money collected in England for the Pope, not to be remitted to him 
in coin or bullion, but by way of exchange {per viam Camhii)}^ 

5. Pothier de Change, n. 6; Story on Bills, § 6; 1 Bell Com. b. 3, c. 2, § 4 
, 386. 

6. 3 Kent Com., Lect. 44. 

7. Story on Bills, § 6, note 4. 

8. 2 Bl. Com. 467. 

9. Chitty on Bills [*11], 16. 

10. Page 181, quoted in 1 Parsons on Notes and Bills, 4. 

11. Anderson's History of Commerce, vol. I, c. 361. 


§ 4. The term "bill of exchange," derived from the French phrase 
''billet de change," is suggestive of the use which it subserves— that of 
perfecting a previous distinct contract of exchange or bargain betwcH'u 
A. and B. at one place, that A. would cause money to be paid to B. or 
his assign at another place, by C, a debtor to A., or supplied by him 
with value to the amount. ^^ jhus, if A. and B. are in England, and 
C. in Jamaica be indebted to A. one thousand pounds, and IV be 
going to Jamaica, B. may pay A. this thousand pounds and take a bill 
of exchange drawn by A. in England upon C. in Jamaica, and collect 
the amount from C. when he comes thither; and thereby A. receives 
his debt, at any distance of place, by transferring it to B., and B. re- 
ceives back his money at the end of his journey— and the i)art ics arc 
mutually benefited by avoiding the dangers of loss or robbery which 
would attend the actual transmission of funds to and fro.'"* 

From this primitive use, bills of exchange became, in the expansion 
of commerce, the evidences of valuable i)roperty, and in a great 
measure the equivalent of money, enlarging the (•ai)ital stock of 
wealth in circulation, and thereby facilitating and increasing the; 
operations of trade between communities and nations.'" 

§ 5. Promissory notes have as obscure an origin as bills of ex- 
change.— There is no doubt that they were in use among the 
Romans, 1^ but they seem never to have acquired thos<; negotiable 
qualities which now impart to them their chief value a.s instruments 
of commerce. They were in use upon the continent of Europe before 
their introduction into England, where they first came in vogue about 
the middle of the seventeenth century,'^ although it has Jjeen thought 
that they possess a more recent origin.^' In the earlier refxjrts the 
terras "bill" and "note" appear to have Vjeen usf^J indiscriminately, 
and it is difl&cult to determine in many cases whether the particular 
suit was brought upon the one instrument or the other." It ha.s been 
a much debated question whether or not the common law of England 
recognized the negotiability of promlsson*' notes; and most vigorously 
was the negative advocated by Lord Holt, who deelare^J that the 
effort to place them on the same f ooting as bills of exchange "prr>- 

12. Chitty on Bilk, 1. 

IS. 2 Bl. Com. 467. 

14. Gibson v. Minet, 1 H. Bl. 618. 

15. Stor>' on Notes, § 5. 

16. Stor>' on Notes, § 6. 

IT. Buller v. Crips, 6 Mod. 29. 

la. Grant v. Vaujchan. 3 Butt. 1525. 


ctM'dcd from the ohstinucy and oijiruonativciirss of the merchants wlio 
were endeavoring to set the law of Lombard street al)()ve the law of 
Westminster Hall." '" This wmtroversy was terminated by the pass- 
age of the statute 3 and 4 Anne, chap. [170')] (made jierpetiial hy 
the statute 7 Anne, chap. 25), which made j)romissory notes "assign- 
able or indorsahle over in the .same manner a.s inland hills of exchange 
are, or may be according to the custom of merchants." ^ 

This statute has been adopted in .some of tiie States of the I'nited 
States, or in its lieu other statutes preserii)ing the criteria and condi- 
tions t)f negotiability."-' It is not therefore at this time a fjuestion of 
nmch practical consequence whether at common law promi.s.sory notes 
wen^ negotiable* or not; though occjusionally the point is presented in 
States where the statute law on the subject fixes other criteria of 
negotiability than established by the statute of Anne. By 
som(! authorities it is contended that the statute of Anne was only 
declaratory of their then existing status,-'- while by others the result 
of Lord Holt's reasoning is concurred in.-^ Profes.sor Parsons con- 

19. Clcrkc V. Murfm, 2 I>il. Riiym. 757 (1703), 1 Salk. 129, 3C.:i; Cliitty, Jr., 
oil Hills, 219. 

20. Tin- statute of .\nnc (.'{ it 4 .Vnno, rluip. 9) proviilcs: "That :ili notes in 
writing; tli:it shall he niatle and siKni'<l i)y any |)erson, etr., wherein* such per- 
son, etc., shall promise to pay to any other person, his, hor, or their order, or 
unto bearer, any sum of money mentioned in such note, shall be taken and (con- 
strued to be, by virtue thereof, due and payable to any such person, etc., to whom 
the same is made ]>ayable; and also every such note paj'able to any person, etc., 
his, her, or their onhT, shall be lus-si^nable or indorsable over, in the .same manner 
as inland bills of exchange are or may be, according to the custom of merchants; 
and that the p(>rsons, etc., to whom such .sum of money is or .shall be by such note 
made payable, shall and may maintain an action for the same, in such matmer as 
he, she, or they, mi^ht do upon anj' inland bill of exchange, made or drawn ac- 
cording to the custom of merchants, against the person, etc., who signed the same; 
and that any person, etc., to whom such note that is made payable to any person, 
etc., his, her, or their order, is indorsed or a.ssignefl, or the money therein men- 
tioned ordered to be jiaid by indorsement thereon, shall and may maintain his, 
her, or their action for such sum of money, either against the p(>rson, etc., who 
signed the note, or against any of the persons that indorsed the same, in like 
manner as in cases of inland bills of exchange." 

21. Cowan v. Hallack, 9 Colo. .579, citing the text; Pool v. Anderson, IK) Ind. 
92, 18 N. E. 44r). See post, 804. 

22. Irvin v. Maury, 1 Mo. 194; Dunn v. Adams, 1 Ala. .527. See Edwards 
on Bills, 51, 52; 1 Parsons on Notes and Bills, 10-13. There is a very learned 
and able dissertation on the progress of the Lex Mercatoria and the negotia- 
bility of promi.ssory notes in 1 Cranch S. C. II., appendix, note A, 368. 

23. Caton v. Lcmox, 5 Rand. 31; Davis v. Miller, 14 Gratt. 18; Norton v. 
Rose, 2 Wash. (Va.) 233; First Nat. Bank v. Hunt, 25 Mo. App. 170. 


eludes that "these notes were, at the time the statute was made, 
negotiable by the law merchant of England, which was and is as 
much a part of the law of England as — to use the strong language of 
Christian — the laws relating to marriage and murder."^^ 



§ 6. Bills of exchange are either foreign or inland, — foreign 
when drawn in one State or country, and made payabU' in another 
State or country;-'* inland when drawn, and made payable, in the 
same State or country.-*' Inland bills are of later origin than foreign 
bills, not having been in use in luigland at a much earlier jjcriod than 
the reign of Charles II.'-" The advantages derived from employing 
foreign bills for remittance of money induced merchants universally 
to adopt them, and originally deriving their sanction from the custom 
of merchants, they were subsccjuently recognized and approved by 
the judicial tribunals, and the engagements of the various parties to 
them enforced.^ Inland bills, like them, were at first more restricted 
in their operation than at present, for it was deemed essential to their 
validity that a special custom f(jr the drawing and accepting them 
shoukl exist between the towns in which the drawer and acceptor 
lived; or if they lived in the same town, that such a custom should 
exist therein.-"-' .\t first, also, effect w;is only given to tin; custom 

24. 1 Parsons on Notes and Bills, 13. 

25. r-.ray Tie ALiimhor Co. v. Farmers' Rank, 100 Ky. 004, 60 S. W. .5.37. 

26. .Morrisf)n v. Farmers' ite. Hank, 9 Okla. 097, 00 Pae. 273. An instrument 
made in one State direetinR a person in another State to pay a certain amount 
twelve months after date, and charge to the account of the drawer, is to be re- 
garded not as a promi.s.sory note, but as a foreign bill of exchange. Johnson 
County Sav. Bank v. Kramer, 42 Ind. App. 54.S, K6 N. E. 84 (1908). Where a note 
is made in this State, payable at a specifiwl bank, but not naming the State in 
which the bank is .situatcni, it wiU be presumwl, the contrary not appearing on the 
face of the note, that the bank is situated in this State, and is negotiable as an in- 
land bill of exchange. Collins v. Frost, 54 Ind. 245. 

27. Chitty on Bills [*n\, 16. 

28. Chitty on Bills [*11], 16; Martin v. Boure, Cro. Jac. 6 (1602); Oaste v. 
Taylor, Cro. Jac. 306 (1613); Hussey v. Jacob, Ld. Raym. 87 (1696); Chitty, Jr., 
157, 158, 189. 

29. Buller v. Cripps, 6 Mod. 29 (1704); Pinkney v. Hall, Ld. Raym. 175; Chitty 
on Bills [*11, 121, ItJ; Chitty, Jr., 222. 


when the parties were merchants, though afterward extended, as in 
the case of forciKu l)ills, to all persons whether traders or not.^ 

Ufulcr Neguliahlf Inslruminl .stdtnte. — The N«'j>;otial)le Instrument 
statute defines inhind and foreign bills of exchange.^' 

§ 7. The chief difference between foreign and inland bills is this: 
that the former must be protested in order to charge the drawer, 
while the latter nee<l not be.^- But there are other differences im- 
portant to be observed. Every contract, as to its valiility, nature, 
interpretation, and effect, is governed by the laws (jf the place where 
it is made, unless it is to be performed in another place, in which case 
it is governed by its laws; and as the drawer, acceptor, and each 
indorser is a several and distinct contracting party, his liabilities are 
to be ascertained by the law of the place where his engagement is to 
be i)erformed. This subject, and also the interesting questions which 
.arise when a bill or note is signeti or ilated in one place and delivered 
in another, will be discussed elsewhere.^' 

§ 8. What bills are deemed foreign in England. — In England, 
whence comes the distinction between foreign and inland bills, a 
bill drawn in Ireland and payable in England is deemed a foreign 
bill.^^ And where a bill was drawn in London upon a merchant in 
Brussels, payable to the drawer's order in London, it was held an 
inland bill, Bolland, B., saying: "An inland bill is a bill drawn in and 
payable in Great Britain, wliich this bill is." ^^ 

§ 9. States foreign as to each other. — There is no doubt that the 
several States of the United States are foreign as to each other; for 
though in the aggregate they form a confederated government, yet 
the several States retain (theoretically) their individual sovereignties, 
and, with respect to their municipal regulations, are foreign to each 
other. ^^ Thus, if a drawer and drawee reside in Kentucky, and the 

30. Bromwick v. Lloyd, 2 Lutw. 1585; Chitty, Jr., 193; Sarsfield v. With- 
erly, Carth. 82; Chitty on Bills [*11, 12], 16. 

31. Appendix, sec. 129. And see Bank of Laddonia v. Bright-Coy Commission 
Co. (Mo. App.), 120 S. W. 648. 

32. See vol. II, chapter XXVIII, on Protest, § 926 et seq. 

33. See chapter XXVII, on the Conflict of Laws, § 868 et seq. 

34. Mahoney v. Ashlin, 2 B. & Ad. 478. 

35. Amner v. Clark, 2 Cromp., M. & R. 468. 

36. Armstrong v. American Ex. Nat. Bank, 133 U. S. 433; Life Ins. Co. v. 
Pendleton, 112 U. S. 696; Joseph v. Salomon, 19 Fla. 632, citing the text; Warder 


bill be payable in New Orleans, Louisiana, it is a foreign bill ; ^^ 
though if it be drawn in Kentucky on a New Orleans merchant, and 
be payable in Kentucky, it would be inland.^ 

§ 10. Rules of decision of Federal courts. — In the Federal 
courts of the United States, the decisions are sometimes in con- 
formity with those of the State courts of last resort in respect to 
the liabilities of parties to bills and notes, but not uniformly. The 
thirty-fourth section of the Judiciary Act of 1789 provides that "the 
laws of the several States, except where the Constitution, treaties, 
or statutes of the United States shall otherwise require or provide, 
shall be regarded as rules of decision in trials at common law, in the 
courts of the United States, in cases where they apply." But this 
section has been held to be limited in its application to the laws of the 
several States of a strictly local character, that is to say, to the posi- 
tive statutes of the States, and their interpretation by the local tribu- 
nals, and the rights and titles to things having a permanent locality, 
such as real estate, and not to extend to questions of general com- 
mercial law. Therefore where any controversy arises as to the lia- 
bility of a party to a bill of exchange, promissory note, or other 
negotiable paper, in one of the Federal courts of the United States, 
which is not determined by the positive words of a State statute, or 
by its meaning as construed by the State courts, the Federal courts 
will apply to its solution their conception of the general principles of 
the law merchant, regardless of any local decision.'^ The rule that a 

V. Arell, 2 Wash. (Va.) 298; Brown v. Ferguson, 4 Leigh, 37; Buckner v. Fin- 
ley, 2 Pet. 586; Lonsdale v. Brown, 4 Wash. C. C. 86, 153; Chenowith v. Cham- 
berlin, 6 B. Mon. 60; Duncan v. Course, 3 Const. R. (So. Car.) 100; State Bank 
V. Hayes, 3 Ind. 400; Warren v. Coombs, 20 Me. 139; Ticonic Bank v. Stackpole, 
41 Me. 302; Phcrnix Bank v. Hussey, 12 Pick. 483; Carter v. Union Bank, 7 
Huraphr. 548; Carter v. Burley, 9 N. H. 558; Wells v. Whitehead, 15 Wend. 
527; Todd v. Neal's Admr., 49 Ala. 266; Donegan v. Wood, 49 Ala. 242. Contra, 
Miller v. Hackley, 5 Johns. 375, Vanness, J. 

37. Buckner v. Finley, 2 Pet. 586. 

38. Amner v. Clark, 2 Cromp., M. & R. 468. If a draft is drawn on a resident 
of a State and payable within that State it is an inland bill of exchange notwith- 
standing the fact that the drawer hves in another State and the draft was ac- 
tually drawn in the latter. Sylvester v. Crohan, 63 Hun, 509, IS N. Y. Supp. 546. 

39. Swift V. Tyson, 16 Pet. 1, Story, J., saying: "We have not now the sHghtest 
difficulty in holding that this section, upon its true intendments and con.struc- 
tion, is strictly limited to local statutes and local usages of the character before 
stated, and does not extend to contracts and other instruments of a commercial 
nature, the true interpretation and effect whereof are to be sought, not in the 


Federal court will not follow the law of the State in which the court 
is sitting, unless the State law is statutory, has boon appliod on the 
questions whether a certificate of deposit is a nogotiahle instrument,"' 
whether a note containing a stipulation for an attorney's fee is 
negotiable *^ and may be enforccnl,''- as to what is sufficient to put the 
purchaser of negotiable paper on notice of fact.s that do{)rivo him of 
the character of an innocent purchjiser,'*^ as to the obligation iiuurrod 
by tho indorsoment of a noto,^' and as to the manner of giving and 
the sufficiency of a notice of dishonor.''' 

Effect of Negotiable Instrument statute. — In those States, therefore, 
which have adopted the Negotiable Instrument statut(\ the Federal 
courts will apply the statutory provisions and the construction which 
may have been given thereto by the highest court of the State, but 
when such State court has not construed the statute, the Federal court 
will construe it for its(>lf.'''' 

decisions of the looiil tribunals, hut in the Kcneral principlos and dortrines of corn- 
morcial jurispruilencc. Undoubtedly, the decisions of the local tribunals upon 
Buch subjects are entitlc<l to and will receive the most deliberate attention and 
respect of this court; but they cannot furnish positive rules, or conclusive author- 
ity, by which our own judgments are to be bound up and povemed. The law 
respecting negotiable instruments may be truly declared, in the language of 
Cicero, adopted by Lord Mansfield in Luke v. Lyde, 2 Burr. 882, 887, to be, in 
a great measure, not the law of a single country only, but of the commercial world: 
'Non eril alia lex Roma;, alia Athcnis, alia nunc, alia posthac, sed el apiul omnes 
gentes, el omni tern-pore, una eademque lex oblinebit.'" Mercer County v. Ilackett, 
1 Wall. 96; Township of Pine Grove v. Talcott, 19 Wall. 607; Gelpcke v. Du- 
buque, 1 Wall. 175; Gates v. National Bank, 100 U. S. (10 Otto) 239; Railroad Co. 
V. National Bank, 102 U. S. (12 Otto) 14; Farmers' Nat. Bank v. Sutton Mfg. 
Co., 3 C. C. A. 1, 52 Fed. 191. Where, in an action on promissory notes issued 
by a city, the defense was raised that the notes were invalid because of an over- 
issue, the question is not one purely of local law, but when the facts are not ex- 
hibited on the face of the notes and were not known to the holders at the time 
the title to them was acquired, the local decisions need not be examined. Citizens' 
Savings Bank v. Newburyport, 169 Fed. 766. See on this subject article in 
American Law Review for April, 1875, and post, §§ 1525, 1526. 

40. Forrest v. Safety Banking & Trust Co., 174 Fed. 345; Bank of Saginaw 
V. Title & Trust Co. of Western Pennsylvania, 105 Fed. 491. 

41. State Nat. Bank v. Cudahy Packing Co., 126 Fed. 543; affirmed 134 
Fed. 538. 

42. The Avolan, 169 Fed. 696. 

43. Union Nat. Bank v. Neill, 149 Fed. 711, 10 L. R. A. (N. S.) 426. 

44. Northern Nat. Bank v. Hooper, 98 Fed. 935. 

45. Gurnsey v. Imperial Bank of Canada, 188 Fed. 300. 

46. Coosley v. Reynolds, 196 Fed. Rep. 640; Forrest v. Safety Banking & Trust 
Co., 174 Fed. 345; In re Hopper-Morgan Co., 154 Fed. 249. 


§ 10a. Federal jurisdiction in cases of bills of exchange and 
promissory notes. — By the Federal Judiciary Act of 1789 it was 
provided that no district or circuit court shall "have cognizance of any 
suit to recover the contents of any promissory note, or other chose in 
action in favor of an assignee, unless a suit might have been prosecuted 
in such court to recover the said contents, if no assignment had been 
made, except in cases of foreign bills of exchange." ^^ According to 
the established construction of this act the right of the holder of a 
promissory note, payable to a particular person or })earer, to sue in 
his own name, does not depend upon the citizenship of the named 
payee, or of the first, or of any previous holder; because in all such 
cases the title passed by delivery and not by virtue of any assign- 
ment.'*^ By act of Congress of March 3, 1875, it is provided: "Nor 
shall any circuit or district court have cognizance of any suit founded 
on contract in favor of an assignee, unless a suit might have been 
prosecuted to recover thereon if no assignment had been made, except 
in cases of promissory notes negotiable by the law merchant and bills 
of exchange." *^ 

The restriction was thus removed as to "promissory notes nego- 
tiable by the law merchant," and jurisdiction in such suits made to 
depend upon the citizenship of the parties as in other cases.^° 

This provision of the statute has been held not to apply in cases 
removed from the State courts untler the removal acts, but to the 
original jurisdiction of the Federal courts.^^ 

In some cases it has been held that the terms "promissory notes 
negotiabh; by the law merchant" embrace such instruments as 
would be negotiable according to the general principles of the law 
merchant, which was a part of the common law,^^ while others con- 
sider that they are confined to those instruments which are nego- 

47. See § 11 of Act of Sept. 24, 1789, chap. 20. Thompson v. Perrine, 106 
U. S. 589; Thomson v. Lee County, 3 Wall. 327; Bushnell v. Kennedy, 9 Wall. 
387; City of Lexington v. Butler, 14 Wall. 282; Cooper v. Town of Thompson, 
13 Blatchf. 434; Coe v. Cayuga Lake R. Co., 19 Blatchf. 522. 

48. Bullard v. Bell, 1 Mason, 243; Bank of Ky. v. Wooster, 2 Pet. 318. 

49. § 1, chap. 137, Supp. to Revised Statutes of the U. S., p. 174. 

50. New Orleans v. Quinlan, 173 U. S. 192, 19 Sup. Ct. Rep. 329; Treadway 
V. Sanger, 107 U. S. 323, 2 Sup. Ct. Rep. 691. 

61. Delaware County v. Diebold & Co., 133 U. S. 473; City of Lexington v. 
Butler, 14 Wall. 283. 

52. Windsor Sav. Bank v. McMahon, 38 Fed. 283; Beverley v. Davidson Co., 
2 Flipp. 507; Gloucester Ins. Co. v. Younger, 2 Curtis, 338; Adams v. Addington, 
16 Fed. 89. 

12 Negotiable instruments § lOa 

liable according to the local law, that is, as said by Gresham, J.: 
"Notes having the qualities of promissory notes negotiable by the 
law merchant, namely, notes which, in the hantis of a bona fide pur- 
chaser for value before maturity, were subject to no equities in favor 
of the maker." '^^ This latter view seems to us the correct one. An 
instrument cannot be negotiable when nuule in a State whose statutes 
declare it otherwise. And if the broad interpretation is given to the 
words "negotiable by the law merchant," the result in some cases 
would be that suit would be maintainable in a Federal court because 
the instrument was in a form negotiable "l)y the law mc^rchant" 
when negotiable qualities under State statutes did not exist. The 
intent of the statute was doubtless to give jurisdiction in cases of 
negotiable instruments; and this would be ousted in some cases where 
the instrument by State statute was made negotiable, though not so 
by the law merchant inilependent tiiereof. The statute would seem 
to have contemplated substance rather than form, and the construc- 
tion given it in the cases which are approvingly cited, enforces this 

By act of Congress of March 3, 1887, it is declared: "Nor shall any 
circuit or district court have cognizance of any suit, except upon 
foreign bills of exchange, to recover the contents of any promissory 
note, or other chose in action, in favor of an assignee, or of any sub- 
sequent holder, if such instrument be payable to bearer and be not 
made by any corporation, unless such suit might have been prose- 
cuted in such court to recover the said contents if no assignment or 
transfer had been made.^'* This statute has been held to prohibit 
suits in the Federal courts in all cases, other grounds of jurisdiction 
being wanting, except suits on foreign bills of exchange, and except 
suits on promissory notes made payable to bearer and executed by a 

53. Gregg v. Weston, 7 Biss. 360; Porter v. City of Janesville, 3 Fed. 317. 

64. U. S. Stat, at Large, 188&-1887, p. 552, chap. 373; New Orleans v. Quin- 
lan, 173 U. S. 192, 19 S. Ct. 329. And see Act of August 13, 1888, chap. 866, 25 
Stat. 433. The act of March 3, 1911, sec. 24 (1) in part provides: "No district 
court shall have cognizance of any suit (except upon foreign bills of exchange) to 
recover upon any promissory note or other chose in action in favor of any as- 
signee, or of any subsequent holder if such instrument be payable to bearer 
and be not made by any corporation, unless such suit might have been pros- 
ecuted in such court to recover upon said note or other chose in action if no 
assignment had been made." 

55. Wilson v. Knox County, 43 Fed. 481, a county warrant. See Newgass v. 
New Orleans, 33 Fed. 196; Rollins v. Chaffee County, 34 Fed. 91; New Orleans 


§ 11. The face of the bill does not always disclose its character. — 

Whether or not a bill is foreign or inland, and by what laws the 
liabilities of parties to bills and notes are to be governed, may often 
be not sufficiently disclosed by the date of place on the instrument 
itself, as the courts of the several States, as of different countries, 
upon settled principles, do not take judicial notice of the divisions of 
foreign States into counties, towns, and cities. Thus, in England, 
the averment that a bill was drawn in Dublin was not considered 
equivalent to averring that it was an Irish bill. Abbott, C. J., said: 
"The framer of the declaration has not said that Dublin is in Ireland, 
and we cannot assume it, whatever may be our belief on the subject; " 
and Bailey, J., said: "There may be a Dublin in America or Scot- 
land." ^ So the Supreme Court of Texas have held that they could 
not judicially know that a note payable in New Orleans was payable 
in Louisiana,^^ or a bill dated there was drawTi in Louisiana; ^^ or that 
a note dated "Philadelphia" was made in Pennsylvania.^^ So in 
Missouri, as to New Orleans, the court would not take judicial notice 
that a bill dated there was foreign.^ 

§ 12. It may be difficult sometimes to determine whether a bill is 
inland or foreign. — Thus, suppose a Boston merchant, temporarily in 
the city of New York, were to draw his bill on a New York merchant, 
payable in New York, but were to date it in Boston, would it be an 
inland or a foreign bill? In relation to innocent third parties, who 
have taken the bill in the belief that it was what its face imported, it 
would undoubtedly be held foreign.^^ "As between the original 
parties and others having notice of the circumstances under which the 
l)ill was dra^vn, the question would be more doubtful; but we think 
it would, even then, be held to be a foreign bill, especially if it ap- 
peared that it was drawn in that form for no wrongful purpose, but 

V. Quinlan, 173 U. S. 192, 19 Sup. Ct. Rep. 329. Certificates of corporations 
payable to bearer were sued on and action sustained. See also New Orleans v. 
Benjamin, 153 U. S. 411, 14 Sup. Ct. Rep. 905. As to jurisdiction upon an in- 
dorsement as a distinct contract, see post, under § 678. 

66. Kearney v. King, 18 Eng. C. L. 28. 

57. .Andrews v. Hoxie, 5 Tex. 171. 

68. Yale v. Wood, 30 Tex. 17. 

69. Cook V. Crawford, 4 Tex. 420. 

60. Riggin v. Collier, 6 Mo. 568. 

61. See chapter XXVII, on the Conflict of Laws, and Snaith v. Mingay, 1 
Maule & S. 87; Lennig v. Ralston, 23 Pa. St. 137. 


only that the bill might conform to the drawer's usual course of 
business, and be what it would have been had he not happened to be 
at the time in New York. The converse of this has been decided." ^^ 
Such is the language of Professor Parsons on this question, which we 
adopt as a succinct and judicious view of the law.®^ 

§ 13. If a bill be upon its face an inland bill, the fact that it was 
actually drawn and delivered in a foreign State will not divest it of its 
inland character. Thus, where a bill was drawn in Wisconsin, but 
dated East Fork, in Illinois, it was held in the latter State that it must 
be treated and considered as an inland bill. "Such was the intention 
and agreement of the parties, as shown on the face of the instrument. 
That it was competent for the parties, both being citizens of Illinois, 
to provide for their express agreement that it should l)e subject to and 
construed by the laws of this State, is too well established by authority 
to admit of doubt." " 

§ 14. The presumption is that a bill purporting to be drawn abroad 
was really so drawn. But evidence would be admissible to show that 
a bill purporting to have been drawn abroad was, in fact, drawn 
within the country where suit is brought, and is therefore void, for 
want of a stamp required by the internal revenue laws of such coun- 
try.^^ But it has been recently held, in Massachusetts, that the 
maker or indorser of a note cannot, as against the indorsee in that 
State for value, before maturity and wdthout notice, show that the 
note, which was dated in Boston, with intent that it should be a 
Massachusetts contract, was actually made in New York, and on 
account of illegal interest, was void under the usury laws of the latter 

62. Strawbridge v. Robinson, 5 Gilm. 470. 

63. 1 Parsons on Notes and Bills, 57. 

64. Strawbridge V. Robinson, 5 Gilm. 472, Caton, J. 

65. Abraham v. Dubois, 4 Campb. 269; Eire v. Moreau, 2 Car. & P. 376 (12 
Eng. C. L.); Jordaine v. Lashbrooke, 7 T. R. 601; Steadman v. Duhamel, 1 C. B. 
888. See post, § 869 et seq. 

66. Towne v. Rice, 122 Mass. 67. 





§ 15. As we have already seen, heretofore it was the policy of the 
common law to interdict the assignment of possibilities, rights, titles, 
and things in action, on the ground, as stated by Lord Coke, that "it 
would be the occasion of multiplying of contentions and suits, of 
groat oppression of the people, and chiefly of terre-tenants, and the 
subversion of the due and equal execution of justice." ^^ Bills of ex- 
change and promissory notes have long been recognized exceptions 
to this rule; and by courts of equity, it has long been discredited, and 
assignments of a mere naked possibility or chose in action for valuable 
consideration have been held valid and effectuated by them.*^^ And 
courts of law, following in the footsteps of equity, now recognize and 
enforce such assignments in suits brought in the name of the assignor 
for the benefit of the assignee, it being necessary for the assignee to 
assert his rights at law in that form, as the want of privity of contract 
between himself and the debtor is considered to stand in the way of a 
suit in his own name,*^'-* except where expressly allowed by statute. 

§ 16. The drawing and transferring of bills of exchange depend 
upon principles of the law merchant, which apply peculiarly to nego- 
tiable instruments. But the effect of the drawing of a bill of exchange, 
upon the rights and interests of the parties in the funds which is in 
the hands of the drawee, depends very frequently upon principles 
derived from the doctrines of courts of equity in respect to equitable 
assignments. And we shall now consider the effect of a bill or order 
upon the fund on which it is drawn. This inquiry naturally divides 
itself into several branches: First. What is the effect of a bill of ex- 
change (a negotiable bill in its commercial sense) drawn for the whole 
amount of a fund in the drawee's hand? Second. What is the effect 
of a nonnegotiable order for the whole of a fund? Third. What is the 
effect of a bill of exchange for part of a fund? And fourth. What is 
the effect of a nonnegotiable order for part of a fund? 

67. Coke's R., Part X, 48a. 

68. 3 Lead. Cas. in Equity [*652], 307; Chitty on Bills [*7, 8], 9, 10. 

69. Wheatley v. Strobe, 12 Cal. 98; Mandeville v. Welch, 5 Wheat. 277; Chitty 
on Bills [*9], 10. 


§ 16a. The questions stated have elicited very diverse and con- 
flicting opinions, and it has been held or declared in judicial decisions: 

(1) That an unaccepted l)ill of exchange for the whole amount of 
the debt due by the drawee to the drawer, or for the whole of the funds 
in the drawee's hands, operates an equitable assignment of the debt 
or funds; '^^ and contrariwise that it does not of itself operate such an 

70. In C.ihson v. Cooke, 20 Pick. 15, Dewey, J., said: "It seems to be equally 
well settled that a draft by the creditor on his debtor in the form of a bill of ex- 
change to the amount of the debt, or the whole funds in his hands, is a Rood and valid 
assiKnment of the debt or fund." In Robins v. Bacon, 3 Greenl. 349, Mellen, C. J., 
said: "A case which Heem.s directly in point is that of Mandeville v. Welch, 5 
Wheat. 277. In that ciise it wiis decided, :us stated by Story, J., in deliverinK the 
oi)iriion of the court, that 'where an order is drawn for a i)articular fund, it 
amounts to an equitable assignment of the fund; and, after notice to the drawee, 
it binds the fund in his hands.'" In these cases the bills were not negotiable; 
but no distinction in respect to them was taken. In Corser v. Craig, 1 Wash. C. C. 
426, suit was brought by the payee and indorser, for the benefit of his indorsee, 
against the drawee. Action was sustained. This is going farther than any other 
adjudicated cases we know of. Had action been brought in the name of the 
drawer for the last indorsee's benefit, it would have been unobjectionable, as 
we think, and the following language of Washington, J., would have been ap- 
phcable. He said: "If the drawee refuse to accept, and pay the bill, the right 
of the holder to the debt once assigned to him is not thereby impaired; although 
he may not be entitled to recover the same in his own name, for the want of a 
promise to pay. But he may sue the drawer, or the drawee in the name of the 
drawer, for the debt originally due, in consequence of the implied contract of 
the assignor of a chose in action, that the debtor shall pay, and on failure, that 
the assignor will. The bill being retained after protest, by the assignee, is evi- 
dence that the amount has not been paid by the drawer or any of the indorsers. 
I see no possible mischief which can result from this doctrine. For, if after pay- 
ment refused, and protest made, the drawee should pay over the funds in his 
hands to the drawer, or to his order, without notice from the first assignee, that 
he should retain the bill and look to him for the amount, so far as he was bound 
to pay; this would be a good defense against a suit brought in the name of the 
drawer." In Wheatley v. Strobe, 12 Cal. 97, where bill was for whole amount, 
it was held that after presentment of the bill, funds could not be reached by 
attachment at suit of drawer's creditors. Field, J., said: "The want of a written 
acceptance does not affect the right of Howell (the holder) to the money due, 
but only the mode of enforcing it. With the acceptance he could have sustained 
an action upon the order; without it he must recover upon the original demand by 
force of the assignment. Under the old common-law practice, the action could 
only be maintained in the name of the assignor for the benefit of the assignee, 
but under our system it may be brought in the name of the assignee as the party 

71. Bank of Commerce v. Bogy, 44 Mo. 15; Shand v. De Buisson, 18 Eq. Cas. 
283; First Nat. Bank v. Dubuque S. R. Co., 52 Iowa, 378; Bush v. Foots, 58 
Miss. 5. 


(2) That a bill of exchange for part of a debt or fund is not an 
assignment pro tanto unless accepted/^ and although it be nonnego- 
tiable/^ But the theory of a bill, as stated by some of the best writers, 
would lead to a different conclusion,^^ and a check, which is a species 
of bill, has been, in a number of cases, held an equitable assignment 
pro tanto J° 

(3) That an order for an entire debt due by the drawee to the 
drawer, or an entire fund in his hands, specifying the debt or fund, 
operates an equitable assignment, and binds the drawee as soon as he 
has notice/** This doctrine is well settled, 

(4) That an unaccepted order for part of a fund specified in it is not 
an assignment pro tanto; " but contrariwise (and the better opinion) 
that it is/s 

beneficially interested. Courts of law, equally with courts of equity, gave effect 
to assignments like the one under consideration, by controlling the proceeds of 
the judgments recovered for the benefit of the assignee." Nimocks v. Woody, 
97 N. C. 1; Lee v. Robinson, 2 N. Eng. (R. I.) 020; Roberts v. Austin, 26 Iowa, 
315. See vol. II, chapter XLVII, on Checks; Chitty on Bills, p. 1 (13th Am. ed.); 
Hirshfield v. Ludwig, 69 Hun, 5.04, 24 N. Y. Supp. 634. 

72. Brill V. Tuttle, 81 N. Y. 547; Att'y-Gen'l v. Continental Life Ins. Co., 71 
N. Y. 325; Noe v. Christie, 51 N. Y. 273; Throop Grain Cleaner Co. v. Smith, 
lia N. Y. 90; People v. Remington, 45 Hun, 335; Christmas v. Russel, 14 Wall. 
84; Chase v. Alexander, 6 Mo. App. 506. A negotiable draft, not payable out 
of a specific fund, does not amount to an equitable assignment. Borough of 
Rosolle Park v. Montgomery (N. J. Ch.), 60 Atl. 954; McBride v. American Ry. 
& Lighting Co. (Tex. Civ. App.), 127 S. W. 229. 

73. In Shaver v. West. IJn. Tel. Co., 57 N. Y. 461, the nonnegotiable bill ran, 
" pay D. L. N. $50 monthly on last day of each and every month, com- 
mencing March 31st, 1868, until the sum of $300 is paid, and charge my salary 
account." Held not an assignment, Lott, Ch. C, saying: "It is not payable out 
of a particular fund." 

74. Story on Bills, § 13. 

75. Sec vol. II, §§ 1643, 1646; First Nat. Bank v. Coates, 8 Fed. 540, Miller, J. 

76. Mandeville v. Welch, 5 Wheat. 277; Robins v. Bacon, 3 Greenl. 346; Cow- 
perthwaite v. Sheffield, 3 N. Y. 243; McMenomy v. Ferrers, 3 Johns. 72; Bank 
of Commerce v. Bogy, 44 Mo. IS; Walker v. Munro, 18 Mo. 564; Anderson v. 
De Soer, 6 Gratt. 364; Cutts v. Perkins, 12 Mass. 209; Morton v. Naylor, 1 Hill. 
583; Gibson v. Cooke, 20 Pick. 15; Moore v. Davis, 57 Mich. 255, distinguishing 
the case from Grammel v. Carmer, 55 Mich. 201, where the draft was a "banker's 
draft" and drawn for only a part of the fund. Contra in Lewis v. Traders' Bank, 
30 Minn. 135, unless the fund be particularly specified. 

77. See post, §§ 22, 23, 23a. 

78. In Row V. Dawson, 1 Ves. 331 (1749), it appeared that A. borrowed money 
of B., and gave him a draft upon a fund due him out of the Exchequer, drawn 
on Swinburne, the Deputy of Horace Waljjole, and payable, as expressed, "out 
of the money due to me from Horace Walpolc out of the Exchequer, and which 



(5) That a partial unaccepted order will operate as an equitable 
assignment, although drawn upon a fund not yet in existence, or 
upon a debt not yet mature, and although the sources of payment be 
precarious and uncertain/' 

will be due at Michaelmas, pay to T. & C, value received." A. afterward be- 
came bankrupt, and it was held that the draft operatetl in an equitable assign- 
ment which should prevail against the assignees in bankruptcy. In Lett v. Morris, 
4 Sim. 607, A., having engaged to pay to B. £2,300 by ailments, B. signed 
and gave to C, for value, an order authorizing A. to i)uy i)arts of each install- 
ment to C, and £400 was to be reserved in A.'s hands out of the balance, ami 
C.'s receipt was to be a discharge to A. A. was served with notice of the order 
on the day it was signed; but there was no act or expression of consent. Vice- 
Chancellor Shad well said: "I entertain no doubt that the order amounts to an 
equitable assignment." In Ex parte South, 3 Swanst. 391, the order for £417 6s., 
"as part of the amount due to me for plumber's work," etc. Held, subsequent 
bankruptcy of drawer did not defeat it, it having been shown to the debtor. In 
Yates V. Groves, 1 Vcs. Jr. 281, it appeared that Dawson being indebted to Yates 
and Brown, upon a note, gave him an order on Groves and Dickinson for the 
amount of the note, which they surrendered, payable out of an amount for lease- 
hold property. Before the money wjus paid, Dawson was thrown into bankruptcy, 
and Yeatcs and Brown claimed the fund pro tanto, and filed their bill to reach it. 
Lord Thurlow said: "This is nothing but a direction by a man to pay part of his 
money to another for a foregone valuable consideration. If he could transfer, he 
has done it; and it being his own money, he could transfer. The transfer was 
actually made. They were in the right not to accept, as it was not a bill of ex- 
change. It i^ not an inchoate business. The order fixed the money the moment 
it was shown to Groves & Dickinson." Christmas v. Russell, 14 Wall. 84. In 
Brill V. Tuttle, 81 N. Y. 457, there was an unaccepted order for part of fund, 
running, "Pay B. & R. S300, and charge same to our account for labor and ma- 
terials performed and furnished in repairs and alterations of a certain house." 
It was shown that the amount was not yet due; but the order was held an as- 
signment of the debt pro tanto, and that subsequent voluntary payment to the 
drawer by the drawee was no defense to suit by the payee. Ehrichs v. De Mill, 
75 N. Y. 370. Order for part of fund assented to by drawee, running, "Pay E. F. 
$400 on account of work done as per contract." Action by payee against drawee 
sustained. In Parker v. Syracuse, 31 N. Y. 376, the order ran, "Pay P. & W. 
$1,420 on plank-road and sidewalk accounts, and charge to my account." Held, 
an assignment; and that after notice to the drawee he would violate equitable 
rights of payee by paying the amount to any other but the payee. In Lowery 
v. Steward, 25 N. Y. 241, the order ran "Pay to the order of A. H. L. $500 on 
account 24 bales cotton shipped to you as per bill of lading by steamer Colorado, 
inclosed to you in letter." Held to be an equitable assignment. 

79. Row v. Dawson, 1 Ves. Sr. 331. In Brooks v. Hatch, 6 Leigh, 534, the 
order was payable "out of the first money which should be due him (the drawer) 
for salt delivered, or to be delivered, to them (the drawees)." Held, equitable 
assignment pro tanto. See also Peyton v. Hallett, 1 Cai. 363; Cutts v. Perkins, 
12 Mass. 206; Brill v. Tuttle, 81 N. Y. 547, 


(6) That if accepted, the bill or order, whether for the whole or 
part ot a timd, operates as an assignment thereof .«° 

§17. Let us now consider the principles to be relied on for the 
solution of these questions; and in the first place: as to the effect of a bill 
of exchange drawn for the entire amount of debt due by the drawer or 
entire fund in the drawee's hands. 

By some of the authorities, as we have seen, such a bill is declared 
to operate as an equitable assignment of the fund.«i By others the 
view ,s taken that the drawing of the bill is an independent transaction 
totally disassociated in legal effect from the funds in the drawee's 
hands, and does not operate as an assignment of them, but simply as 
an engagement of the drawer that the drawee shall pay to the payee 
a certain amount; or that in the event of the drawee's default the 
drawer will do so, the due steps being taken to hold him liable. Great 
confusion has arisen in the adjudicated cases from a failure to dis- 
criminate between the parties who may certainly claim that as to 
them the bill operates as an assignment, and those who cannot make 
such claim. 

In an early English case it was said: "The theory of a })ill of (ex- 
change IS that the bill is an assignment to the payee of a debt due from 
the acceptor to the drawer"; ^^ and it is undoubtedly true that the 
payee has a right to suppose that the drawee has funds of the drawer 
upon the faith of which understanding he receives the bill directing 
them to be paid to him. As between the drawer and payee, then we 
think It is clear that the bill is intended to operate, and does operate 

80. See post, §§ 18, 22, and notes. In Risely v. Smith, 64 N. Y. 576, it was 
held that an acceptor of an order on a fund not then existing could not prevent 
the fund from accrmng, and set it up as a defense; and if he does, that he may be 
Bued on the order. To same effect see Gallagher v. Nichols, 60 N Y 438 In 
Munger y. Shannon, 61 N. Y. 251, the order wa.s for a certain sum, with words 
and deduct the same from my share of the profits, etc.," and it was held that 
Its acceptance implied the condition that it was not to be paid unless there were 
prohts, and that acceptor might show there were none. Nimocks v. Woody 97 
^. C. 1; County of Dcs Moines v. Hinckley, 62 Iowa, 643. 

81. See ante § 16a, and notes. Where a creditor has draxvn a draft on his 
debtor for the full amount of the debt claimed with the account attached in favor 
of a certam bank, this with the payment of the draft by the bank constitutes 

he assignment of the claim, and, upon protest of the draft, the bank has the right 
to hold the drawer of the draft and the debtor responsible. Provident Nat. Bank 
V. C. D. Harnett Co., 45 Tex. Civ. App. 273, 100 S. W 1024 

82. Gibson V. Minet, 1 H. Bl. 569; Story on Bills, § 18; Chitty on Bills [*1] 2 


as an assignment of the fund in the drawee's hands sufficient to meet 
it;^^ and if there be no such funds, and no understanding that the 
bill will be honored, the drawer commits a fraud upon the payee, and 
will be absolutely bound upon the bill, without notice of dishonor. 
And if, after drawing the bill, the drawer should withdraw the funds 
in the drawee's hands, it would be likewise a fraud upon the payee, 
and the drawer would be absolutely bound without notice.'*'* 

§ 18. Accepted bill operates as an assignment. — As between the 
payee and the drawee, however, there is, as generally hekl, no privity 
of contract, unless the drawee accepts to pay the bill. When he does 
this, he becomes absolutely bound to pay the debt to the holder of the 
bill. And any subsequent bill drawn upon him, or transfer or assign- 
ment of the fund in his hands, or legal process served upon him by a 
creditor of the drawer, could create no liability upon him to pay or 
deliver over the funds of the drawer to anyone but the holder to 
whom he has entered into an obligation to pay them.^^ 

It has indeed been said that "a proper bill of exchange does not of 
itself operate as an assignment to the payee of funds of the drawer, in 
the hands of the drawee, and even after an unconditional acceptance, 
it cannot in strictness be held to have that effect, since the drawee 
becomes bound by reason of the contract of acceptance, irrespective 
of the funds in his hands." *® But it has been well replied that, "the 

83. Story on Bills, § 13; Chitty on Bills [*!], 2. 

84. See ante, § 16a, and Gibson v. Cooke, 20 Pick. 15; Robins v. Bacon, 3 
Greenl. 349; Mandeville v. Welch, 5 Wheat. 277. See Chitty on Bills [*1], 2; 
Story on Bills, § 13. 

85. Mandeville v. Welch, 5 WTieat. 277; Barnsdall v. Walemeyer, 142 Fed. 
415; Kyle v. Chattahoochee Nat. Bank, 96 La. 694, 24 S. E. 149; Harris v. Clark, 
3 N. Y. 117, Ruggles, J.; First Nat. Bank v. Dubuque S. R. R., 52 Iowa, 378; 
Lambert v. Jones, 2 Patton & Heath, 144; 2 Parsons and Notes on Bills, 330, 331; 
Story on Bills, § 13. In Buckner v. Sayre, 17 B. Mon. 754, it appeared that the 
Lexington Insurance Company drew a bill on the 5th of August, 1851, on its 
agent, J. H. Wheeler, at New Orleans, payable at six months, for $7,182. In 
November following, the company made a general assignment to Buckner, as 
trustee, to pay its debts. And afterward Wheeler who had accepted the bill, 
paid over $3,000, which he had collected from premiums, to Buckner, the trustee. 
Simpson, J., said: "Sayre, as the holder of the bill of exchange, was entitled to the 
fund in the hands of the acceptor, which the latter, by his acceptance, had appro- 
priated for his use and benefit." Until accepted draft does not operate as an 
assignment, legal or equitable. Erickson v. Inman, 34 Oreg. 44, 54 Pac. 949. 

86. Cowperthwaite v. Sheffield, 3 N. Y. 243, Hurlbut, J. See also Wheeler 
V. Stone, 4 Gill, 47. In Marine and Fire Insurance Bank v. Jauncey, 3 Sandf. 
258, it appeared that John Wood having 105 bales of cotton, which he intended 


theory is, even in such a case, that funds to the account of the bill 
have been assigned, and that the acceptor is estopped from setting up 
any such objection as that there were no funds to assign." ^^ 

§ 19. Whether unaccepted bill for whole of fund operates as an 
assignment.— When, however, the drawee has not accepted, or 
assented to pay the amount to the holder, the rights of the parties are 
more difficult to determine. The holder (unless authorized by statute) 
cannot sue the drawee at law in his own name, for there is no contract 
on the part of the drawee to pay him.«« But there is force in the doc- 
trme that he might sue the drawe e in the name of the creditor for the 

to consiKn to Josoph Wood, drew a bilT^ him in favor of Walsh at sixty days' 
sight for $3,000, which was discounted by plaintiffs, and the proceeds applied 
by John \\ood to pay for the cotton above mentioned, which he had bought 
The bill was dated July 29, 184G, and accepted by the drawee on July C 1846' 
The cotton was shipped to the drawee. On the 30th of June, Joseph Wood be- 
came insolvent, and executed an assignment of all his estate, including a debt due 
him by John Wood, the drawer, of $2,200. The cotton was also placed in Jaun- 
cey s hands, and its net proceeds were $2,700, which the plaintiffs sought to reach 
by their bill in equity. The court said in respect to the bill of exchange, that 
though accepted, it was not an equitable assignment; and that the drawee on 
receiving the funds derived from the cotton, "had a right to apply them to'the 
payment of his general balance, or in any other way that John Wood and he 
might agree upon." The case was, as we think, rightly decided; but we do not 
see that the broad doctrine declared was necessary to such decision. There was 
a superior equity in the drawee, which had priority over the equitable assignment 
It does not follow that there was not an equitable assignment (subject to su- 
penor equitable rights), or rather an equitable right to foUow the proceeds of 
the cotton. 

f ;n''''o'"°^ ^- ^^°^^^°' 103 Iowa, 186, 72 N. W. 447; 1 Parsons on Notes 
and Bills, 332. 

^88. Tiernan v. Jackson, 5 Pet. 580; Harris v. Clark, 3 N. Y. 117, Ruggles J • 
It IS cleariy settled that no action at law will lie in favor of the holder of a' bill 
of exchange against the drawee, unless he accepts the bill." See post § 50 and 
note; New York & Va. State Bank v. Gilson, 5 Duer, 574, Duer. J • "There is 
no such pnvity between him (the drawee) and the holder as can entitle the latter 
to mamtain an action against him." Yates v. Bell, 3 B. & Aid. 643; Williams v 
i.verett 14 East, 582. Holder has no action against drawee to whom funds are 
remitted for money had and received. See ante, § 15. And as between the drawer 
and the drawee, it has been held that a cotton factor, unless he has expressly or 
impliedly engaged to pay the drafts of a customer, is not liable in damages to 
the latter for refusmg tx, pay his draft, even though the customer had in the 
actor s hands, funds sufficient to meet the same at the time it was presented; but 
the contrary is true, when, by express agreement, or by necessary implication 
arising from the course of dealings between the parties, there is an understanding 

ZTf^T^V^^ f^^^^'e part to pay such drafts. See Moss v. Stokeley, 95 Ga. 
0(0, a o. 111. 692. 


amount of the debt, and offer the bill in evidence to show that it had 
been assigned to him; ^^ and also in the view that although the drawee 
would be protected if he parted with the funds before notice of the 
bill, yet if it were payable on demand, and after its presentment for 
payment, he should pay the amount to another, under a subsequent 
order, he would be still bound to pay it over to the holder of the first 
bill.'-*" And after presentment to the drawee, a subsequent assign- 
ment made by the drawer in trust for creditors, or attachment or 
garnishment process served upon the drawee, would not defeat the 
equitable claim of the holder to have the funds appropriated to pay 
the bill." 

§ 20. The doctrine that an unaccepted bill for the entire debt 
or fund operates as an equitable assignment thereof is opposed to the 
current of authority in the United States, and in England as well, it 
being considered, as already stated, that the bill of exchange is an 
independent security resting on the commercial responsibility of the 
parties thereto.^^ But it is conceded that the bill, whether for the 
whole of the fund or debt, or only a part, may be evidence to show an 
assignment; and that, with other circumstances indicating that such 
was the intention, will vest in the holder an exclusive claim to the debt 
or fund, and bind it in the hands of the drawee after notice.^^ Very 

89. See ante, § 16a, and note; Corser v. Craig, 1 Wash. C. C. 426. 

90. Chitty on Billa [*1], 2, (13th Am. ed.). 

91. See ante, § 16a, note; post, § 1635 el seq.; Wheatley v. Strobe, 12 Cal. 97; 
Roberts v. Austin, 26 Iowa, 315; Nimocks v. Woody, 97 N. C. 1; Flour City 
Nat. Bank v. Garfield, 30 Hun, 580. 

92. See Bank of Commerce v. Bogy, 44 Mo. 15. In this case the bill was drawn 
for the whole debt due the drawer by the drawee. The payee sued the drawee 
and it was held that the bill did not operate per se as an assignment, though 
connected with circumstances it might be evidence of an assignment. The plead- 
ings did not aver an assignment, and were defective in that respect. Harrison v. 
Williamson, 2 Edw. Ch. 438. In Shand v. De Buisson, L. R., 18 Eq. Cas. 283 
(1874), where the bill was for the exact amount of the funds in the drawee's hands, 
Sir James Bacon, V. C, said: "It is entirely new to me to hear that a bill of ex- 
change in an ordinary mercantile transaction in the shape in which this appears, 
can amount to an equitable assignment of the debt. The note might have been 
indorsed to any individual, or to any number of people, who might have indorsed 
it in succession. A mercantile instrument it is in its original, and in that shape it 
remains; and has no other validity or effect, and to call it an assignment of a 
debt would be to call it not by its right name." Grammel v. Carmer, 55 Mich. 
201; Whitney v. Eliot Nat. Bank, 137 Mass. 351; Meldrum v. Henderson, 7 
Colo. App. 256, 43 Pac. 148. 

93. First Nat. Bank v. Dubuque S. R. R., 52 Iowa, 378, 35 Am. Rep, 281; 


slight circumstances in addition to the bill ought to effectuate an 
equitable assignment; and while the current of authority is undoubt- 
edly otherwise, the better opinion, as it seems to us, is that a bill for 
the entire amount of a debt or fund should operate as an equitable 
assignment thereof. The doctrine of equitable assignment is the 
creature of courts of equity, and the phrase "equitable assignment" 
is used because, by the technicalities of pleadings at law, no legal 
assignment can be effectuated.®^ No assent of the debtor is necessary 
to an assignment of the debt. Notice to him is all that is essential to 
affect him with liability to respect the assignment, and so far does 
equity regard the justice of this principle that it is applied even where 
an integral debt is broken up into fragments. Now, then, if A. have 
$1,000 in the hands of B., and draw a bill directing B. to pay $1,000 to 
C, or order, on demand, there can be no fair inference from the trans- 
action but this: that A. intended to assign the debt due to him by 
B. to C, and for the bill to stand in B.'s hands as evidence of the 
acquittance. It is the intention to assign that makes the assign- 
ment.®^ And after presentment of the bill to B., which is notice, what 
sound principle of law could be violated, and what equitable right 
impaired, by holding that an assignment is effected so as to bind 
the debt in equity, and bind B. to respect it — not indeed as a party 
to the bill, but as the holder of the thing assigned? So confident is 
the expectation among mercantile men that a bill drawn on funds will 
be honored, that in order to hold the drawer liable in the event of dis- 
honor, he must be specially notified of the fact, and that the holder 
looks to him for payment. The payee of an unaccepted bill, it is 
true, has nothing but the drawer's direction to pay him the money 
to rely on. But that, in its very nature, imports that (1) the drawee 
holds the money; (2) that the drawer assigns it to the payee; (3) and 
that if the drawee does not respect the assignment and pay the money 
to the payee, the drawer will himself pay its equivalent on being 
notified of the drawee's refusal. It is in anticipation of the drawee's 
assent that the payee is, or may be, induced to take the bill; and 
while he cannot exact acceptance, which is a new engagement, from 
the drawee, that is no reason why he may not compel acquiescence, 
which in nowise affects his rights or privileges. And it seems just and 

Bank of Commerce v. Bogy, 44 Mo. 17; Bank v. Kowalsky, 105 Cal. 42, 38 Pac. 

94. First Nat. Bank v. Coates, 8 Fed. 540, Miller, J. 

95. Kahnweiler v. Anderson, 78 N. C. 137, the court saying: "The intention 
to assign operates as an equitable assignment." 


right that courts of equity and courts of law, in so far as their rules of 
procedure will permit, should carry out and enforce the expectation 
and intention of the; chiefly interested parties. It is not sufficient to 
answer that the drawer's contract is independent and apart from the 
fact that he has, or has not, funds in the drawee's hands. The hill 
imports that he has. He is estopped to deny it. And while it is true 
he may be held personally l)ound whether he has them or not — and 
that indeed he is more rigidly held wh(>n he has no funds and no 
expectation that the bill will be honored than otherwise, because then 
he has not acted in good faith; and while it is true that the payment 
of the bill is not conjined to the funds in the hands of the drawee — we 
can see no reason why, when the funds are actually in the drawee's 
hands, and he is notified of the bill being drawn for them, he should 
not be held bound to hold them, and apply them as his creditor has 
directed. If a subsequent conveyance of the debt by the drawer to 
another by deed, or subsequent levy on the debt at the suit of the 
drawer's creditor, could deprive the holder of the bill of his right to 
pursue them by proper procedure, recourse against the drawer might 
prove of no avail; and the most righteous claim upon the fund might 
fail utterly by a mere technical ruling, which excludes the peculiar 
instruments of commerce from a basis of security freely accorded to 

§ 21. In the second place, as to an order for the whole of a fund. — 

It may be regarded as a settled doctrine that an order founded upon 
a good consideration, given for a specific debt or fund owing by or in 
the hands of a third person, operates as, or rather is evidence of, an 
equitable assignment of the demand to the holder .^^ It is clearly an 
assignment, as between the drawer and the payee, because so in- 
tended.^^ It is equally so as between them and the drawee, as soon 

96. Mandeville v. Welch, 5 Wheat. 277; Robins v. Bacon, 3 Greenl. 346; Cow- 
perthwaite v. Sheffield, 3 N. Y. 243; McMenomy v. Ferrers, 3 Johns. 72; Bank 
of Commerce v. Bogy, 44 Mo. 18; Anderson v. De Soer, 6 Gratt. 364; Cutis v. 
Perkins, 12 Mass. 209; Morton v. Naylor, 1 Hill, 583; Gibson v. Cooke, 20 Pick. 
15; Parker v. City of Syracuse, 31 N. Y. 379; Harris v. Clark, 3 N. Y. 117. A 
release of a specific fund in bank operates as an equitable assignment. Dirimple 
V. State Bank of Philips, 91 Wis. 601, 65 N. W. 501. 

97. Morton v. Naylor, 1 Hill (N. Y.), 583. A landlord gave an order direct- 
ing his tenant to pay W. the rents accruing during a specified period, which, on 
its presentment, he said he would do. The landlord subsequently directed the 
tenant not to pay, but the latter disregarded the notice and paid the order. It 
was held that the tenant did right, the order operating as an equitable assign- 
ment. Cowen, J., said: "I refer to cases in chancery to show that an order for 


as it is presented to him and he assents; ^ and whether he assents or 
not, the holder may in equity recover the debt or fund from him.^^ 
And if the debtor be served with garnishment or other process of law 
after the order has been given, and before he has been compelled to 
pay the amount to another, the order will take precedence.^ An order 
for a specific fund usually contains words indicating an intention to 

pass or appropriate the whole fund, as, "Pay to A. B., § , the 

amount of your collection from C. D.," or the amount received from 
such a transaction;- which word s, unless parenthetically inserted as a 
value is per se an equitable assignment to the payee of the debt due from the 
drawee to the drawer. Our own rules at law as to enforcinK such an assignment 
are well known. We give it the .same efTert lus would a eourt of chancery." Gard- 
ner V. Nat. City Hunk, 39 Ohio St. m\, citing the text. To have an order to pay 
money efTe.-tual jus an equitable :Ls.signmcnt, it be drawn on a particular 
fund, and not be payable generally. Izzo v. Ludington, 79 N. Y. S. 744, 79 App 
Div. 272, afhrmed 17.S N. Y. 021, 70 X. E. 1100. 

98. Legro v. Staples, 16 Me. 2.^j2; Johnson v. Thayer, 17 Me. 403; v 
Napier, 1 McCord, 100; Peyton v. Hallet, 1 Cai. 303. See Story's Eq. Jur., § 1043. 
Where the assignee of a fund accepte<l an order drawn on the fund by' the a.s- 
signor, and paid the order partly in ciush and gave to the drawee of the order a 
due-bill representing the balance, the assignee is liable to the drawee on the due- 
bill as the tran.s}iction amounted to an assignment of a chose in action by the 
drawee of the order to the assignee. Purneil v. Davenport, 30 Mont. 571, 93 Pac. 
939. And an order directing the drawee to pay to the payee, "from equities on 
ho.sier>' consigned to you," a certain sum, "and charge the same to our account," 
IS a direction to make the payment from a fund and to charge it to the drawer, 
and not to charge the payment to a particular fund, and wa.s an assignment of 
the rights of the consignor against the consignee growing out of the consignment 
mentioned in the order, and by acceptance the drawee became bountl to i)iiy so 
much of the amount of the order as, but for the order, would have been i)ayable 
to the drawer when the "equities" should be adjusted. Morrison v. Lamson 
170 Mass. .530, .57 N. E. 997. 

99. Storj-'s Eq. Jur., § 1044; Kahnweiler v. Anderson, 78 N. C. 130; McGahan 
& Co. V. Lockett, 54 S. C. 304, 32 S. E. 429, 71 Am. St. Rep. 796. 

1. Anderson v. De Soer, 6 Gratt. 364. In this it appearwJ that a draft 
for $10,000, drawn by Grivegnee, a legatee, dated Malaga, 20th July, 1819, 
upon the executors of his uncle, at Richmond, Va., who had left him a legacy of 
$10,000, directing that when forthcoming, and out of the funds destined for that 
object by his decea.sed uncle, they should pay that amount to the order of Messrs. 
Scholtz & Brothers, for value received of them, noting the same as amount of 
legacy left him by his uncle, was held to be an assignment of the legacy, and as 
8uch to have precedence over an attachment thereupon served four days after 
the drawing of the draft, and before it was presented. Held otherwise in con- 
test between gamisheeing creditor of depositor and holder of check presented 
for pajTnent after the senice of writ of garnishment on bank. See Commercial 
Bank V. Chilberg, 14 Wash. 247, 44 Puc. 2t>4, 53 .\m. St. Rep. 873. 

2. Bank of Commerce v. Bog^', 44 Mo. 18. 


mere earmark, characterize the instrument as an unnegotiable order, 
and deprive it of its quahties as a commercial instrument. 

§ 22. In the third place and fourth place, as to a bill of exchange, 
or an order for part of a fund. — Tlie doctrine is laid down with 
emphasis by many authorities that an order, or a bill drawn for part 
of a fund, does not operate as an assignment of that part, or give a 
lien as against the drawee, unless he consent to the appropriation by 
an acceptance of the draft. ^ And Mr. Justice Story, delivering the 
opinion of the United States Supreme Court, has said: "The reason 
of this principle is plain. A creditor shall not be permitted to split 
up a single cause of action into many actions, without the consent 
of his debtor, since it may subject him to many embarrassments and 
responsibilities not contemplated in his original contract. He has a 
right to stand upon the singleness of his original contract, and to 
decline any legal or equitable assignments by which it may be broken 
into fragments. When he undertakes to pay an integral sum to his 
creditor, it is no part of his contract that he shall be obliged to pay in 
fragments to any other persons. So that, if the plaintiff could show 
a partial assignment to the extent of the bills, it would not avail him 
in support of the present suit." ' 

§ 23. This doctrine is clearly correct in so far as it applies to legal 

3. Bank v. Brewing Co., 50 Ohio St. 151, 40 Am. St. Rop. GGO; Covert v. 
Rhodes, 48 Ohio St. 66, 27 N. E. 94; Harris v. Clark, 3 N. Y. 115, 116. Rugglcs, 
J., in speaking of Justice Story's opinion in Mandeville v. Welch, 5 Wheat. 286, to 
the effect that a bill of exchange is "in theory an assignment to the payee of a debt 
due from the drawer to the drawee," says: "This is undoubtedly true when the 
bill has been accepted, whether it be drawn on general funds, or a specific fund, 
and whether the bill be in its own nature negotiable or not; for in such case the 
acceptor, by his assent, binds and appropriates the funds for the use of the payee. 
But where an order is drawn on a general, or on a particular, fund for a part 
only, it does not amount to an assignment of that part, or give a lien on the 
drawee unless he consent to an appropriation by an acceptance of the draft." 
See Ex parte Jones, 77 Ala. 330; Missouri Pac. R. R. Co. v. Councilmen, 38 Mo. 
141; Rice v. Dudley, 34 Mo. 392; Grammel v. Carmer, 55 Mich. 201; Weinstock 
V. Bellwood, 12 Bush, 139; Mandeville v. Welch, 5 Wheat. 277; Robins v. Bacon, 
3 Greenl. 346; Gibson v. Finley, 4 Md. Ch. 75; Hopkins v. Beebee, 2 Casey, 85; 
Gibson v. Cooke, 20 Pick. 15; Poydras v. Delamere, 13 La. 98 (O. S. 1838), action 
against drawee; Cowperthwaite v. Sheffield, 1 Sandf. 416, Vanderpool, J.: "Where 
an order is drawn for part of the fund only, it does not amount to an assignment 
of that part, or give a lien as against the drawee, unless he consent to an appro- 
priation by an acceptance of the draft." See cases cited contra, § 16a, notes. 

4. Mandeville v. Welch, 5 Wheat. 277. 


assignments. The holder of the bill or order cannot sue the drawee- 
at-law in his own name, as he would thus divide the cause of action, 
and leave a balance due the creditor,^ He cannot sue in the creditor's 
name, except by his consent, as, at best, he is only entitled to a part 
of the debt due him. But it has been held in numerous cases, and we 
think should now be regarded as law, that an order for part of a fund 
operates as an equitable assignment pro tanio.^ Clearly this is the 
case when it has been accepted or assented to by the drawee.^ And 
when it htus not been accepted, our own view is this: that a nonnego- 
tiaijle order for part of a fund does operate ;ls an equitable a.ssignment 
fno tanto as between the drawer and payee, because obviously so in- 
tcndetl. But as between drawer and payee on the one side, and the 
drawee on the other, it creates no obligation on the latter to paj' it, 
as he has a right to insist on an integral discharge of his debt. And 
if the creditor give a subsequent order for the whole amount, he may 
pay it with impunity, as he thus discharges his debt in its entirety at 
once,* But if the payee or indorsee goes into equity, or the parties are 
l)rought therein i)y any proceeding, so that all of them are before the 
court, the holder of the order may enforce it as an equitable assign- 
ment as against all subsequent claimants, whether by assignment 
from the drawer, or by legal process served upon the drawee.^ 

Mr. Justice Story has stated the principle, as we conceive it, more 
correctly in his treatise on Ekjuity Jurisprudence than in the cases 
hitherto cited; and he there declares that, while a draft for part of a 
fund operates no assignment at law, the same principle applies in 
equity to a draft for part of a fund that applies to a draft for the 
whole, and that "in each case a trust would be created in favor of the 
equitable assignee of the fund, and would constitute an equitable lien 

6. Woinstock v. Bellwootl, 12 Hush, 139. 

6. See cases cited, ante, § IGa; Yciites v. Groves, 1 Ves. Jr. 281; Bradley v. 
Root, 5 Paige Ch. tMl; Lett v. Morris, 4 Sim. 607; Row v. Dawson, 1 Ves. 331; 
Ex parte South, 3 Swanst. 391; Po|)e v. Iluth, 14 Cal. 407; Christmas v. Russell, 
14 Wall. 84; Knapp v. Alvord, 10 Paige, 205; McPhee & McGinnity v. Fowler, 
30 Colo. 202, So Pac. 421. 

7. Desesse v. Napier, 1 McCord, 107; Vreeland v. Blunt, 6 Barb. 182; Peyton 
V. Hallet, 1 Cai. 363; Pope v. Huth, 14 Cal. 407; Cutta v. Perkins, 12 Mass. 206; 
Israel v. Douglas, 1 H. Bl. 239; Clark v. Adair, cited by Buller, J., in Masters v. 
Miller, 4 T. R. 343; Tatlock v. Harris, 3 T. R. 180 (aemble); Ex parte Alderson, 
1 Madd. 53. Sec ante, § 16a. 

8. 3 Lead. Cas. Eq. (3d Am. ed.) 356; Poydras v. Delamere, 13 La. 98 (O. S. 

9. 3 Lead. Cas. Eq. 3.">0; Field v. Mayor of New York, 6 N. Y. 179; Pease v. 
Landauer, 63 Wis. 20, citing the t€Xt. 


upon it." We can perceive no sufficient reason for excluding a bill for 
part of a fund, whether it be negotiable or not, from operating as an 
equitable assignment within the limitations of the text. It would only 
carry out to its legitimate sequence the theory of the bill. The doc- 
trine of equitable assignment is progressive, and we regard the re- 
fusal of courts to extend it to bills for parts of funds as the result of 
that ancient prejudice against commercial instruments, which Lord 
Mansfield so vigorously combated, but the traces of which yet remain 
in precedents which would be " more honored in the breach than in the 
observance." '° It is necessary, in order to support the avSsignment, 
that it should be upon a valuable consideration.'^ 

Under Negotiable Instrument statute. — The statute declares that a 
bill of itself does not operate as an assignment of the funds in the 
hands of the drawee available for the payment thereof, and the drawee 
is not liable on the bill unless and until he accepts the same.^^ 



§ 24. A gift made in contemplation of death is termed donatio 
mortis causa, an expression derived, with the law on the subject, from 
the civil law." And the requisites to the validity of such a gift are: 
(1) That it be made with a view to the donor's death; (2) that the 
donor should die of his then ailment or peril; ^^ (3) that there be a 

10. Story's Eq. Jur., § 1044. See also Zilke v. Woodley, 36 Wash. 84, 78 Pac. 
299, holding that where a draft was deposited in a bank for collection with in- 
structions to credit a certain person with a stated amount when the money was 
collected, this constituted an equitable assignment of that amount to such person. 
A draft on a special fund created to pay the claims for which the draft was 
given is in equity an assignment pro tanto of the fund. McBride v. American Ry. 
& Lighting Co. (Tex. Civ. App.), 127 S. W. 229. 

11. Alger V. Scott, 54 N. Y. 14. 

12. Appendix, sec. 127. See also Fulton v. Gesterding, 47 Fla. 150, 36 So. 56. 

13. Guinan's Appeal, 70 Conn. 347, 39 Atl. 482, Baldwin, J., saying: "It dif- 
fers from a gift inter vivos in that the donee takes a present title Uable to be di- 
vested on the recovery of the donor. If the donor dies, then the effect of the gift 
is the same as in case of a gift inter vivos." 

14. It seems, however, that such gift will not be invalidated because the death 
results from a cause not immediately the one anticipated. Thus where a gift 
was made in anticipation of a fatal result from a surgical operation, and death 
occurred three days after the operation, but not as a result thereof, it was held 


delivery, real or symbolical, of the thing given,^^ and (4) that the gift 
be accepted by the donee. ^^ The gift must take effect in the lifetime 
of the donor, for otherwise it would be available only, if at all, as a 

that the gift was not thereby invalidated. Ridden v. Thrall, 55 Hun, 185, 7 N. Y. 
Supp. 822. To sustain such a gift, it must be made under apprehension of death 
from some present disease, or other impending -peril, and it becomes void by a 
recovery from the disease or escape from the peril. It is not necessary that it 
should be made in extremis, and when there is not time or opportunity to make 
a will — in order to render the gift effectual it is not necessary that the donor 
should die from the apprehendetl disease — it is sufficient if, and before his re- 
covery from that diseas*,", he died from some other disease existing at the time. See 
Ridden v. Thrall, 125 N. Y. 572, 26 N. E. 627, 21 Am. St. Rej). 758. See also 
the case of Board of Missions v. Mechanics' Savings Bank, 40 Ai)p. Div. 120, 
54 N. Y. Supp. 28, 57 N. Y. Supp. 582. 

15. Dickshicd v. Exchange liank, 28 W. Va. 340; McCord v. McCord, 77 Mo. 
166. Delivery to a third person for the donee is sufficient. Woodburn v. Wood- 
burn, 123 111. 619; Dunbar v. Dunbar, 80 Me. 154; Hatch v. Atkinson, 56 Me. 
324; Daniel v. Smith, 75 Cal. 548; VVaynesburg College Appeal, HI Pa. St. 130; 
Gano V. Fisk, 43 Ohio St. 402; Burton v. Bridgejjort, 52 Conn. 398; Curtis v. 
Portland Bank, 77 Me. 151; Newton v. Snyder, 44 Ark. 42; Stephenson v. King, 
81 Ky. 425; Beaver v. Beaver, 117 X. Y. 421. In the c:ise of Ridden v. Thrall, 
sujrra, held, that any delivery of property which transfers either the legal or 
equitable title is sufficient to effectuate the gift. The words of donor, referring 
to gift of deposit in bank, "I think I am going to die, take these books (referring 
to pass-books), bury me out of them and what is left out of it, is yours," do not 
limit or place a condition upon th(' gift, but simjjly upon the donee a 
trust duty to pay the of the donor's funeral, ami in connection with other 
evidence, i.s sufficient to establish a valid gift caum mortis of the deposit. Pod- 
more V. South Brooklyn Savings In.stitution, 48 App. Div. 218, 62 N. Y. Supp. 
901, and ciuses there cited. And such a gift is not invalidated by the fact that 
it is accompanied with a direction to the donee, to divide the balance of the money 
after the payment of the donor's doctor's bill and funeral expenses, between 
himself and others named by the donor. See Loucks v. Johnson, 70 Hun, 565, 
24 N. Y. Supp. 267. The same prinri[)le of law as to delivery is equally ajjplicable 
to gifts inter vivos, and it has been held that if the gift be from father to son, and 
the son has no general or testamentary guardian, the possession of the 
by the father, tis the guardian by nature of the child, does not destroy the gift, 
by reason of nondelivery of the to the child. See Beaver v. Beaver, 
62 Hun, 194, 16 N. Y. Supp. 476, 746; Jones v. Weakley, 99 Ala. 441, 12 So. 420, 
42 Am. St. Rep. 84, 8 S. E. 721; Yancy v. Field, 85 Va. 759; Thomas v. Lewis, 
89 Va. 1, 15 S. E. 389, 37 Am. St. Rep. 848. 

16. See 22 Moak's Eng. Rep. 687-688, and cases cited. Where a mother on 
her death-bed delivered a note for her daughter to another, whom the daughter 
had designated as her agent to receive it, under circumstances indicating the 
mtentive to make a gift either inter vivos or viortis causa, the delivery was suffi- 
cient to title to the note, and it will be presumed that it was accepted. Am- 
nion V. Martin, 59 Ark. 191, 26 S. W. 826. 


testamentary disposition. It must take effect during the life of the 
donor as an executed and complete transfer of the thing, although the 
right of the donee is subject to be divested by actual revocation of 
the donor, by his survival of apprehended peril, by his outliving the 
donee, or by the insufficiency of his estate to pay his debts. ^^ As to 
the character of the article which may be the subject of such a quasi- 
testamentary disposition, the common law has undergone consider- 
able change. Originally, it was limited to chattels which might be 
delivered by the hand ; and the rule was relaxed slowly and somewhat 
reluctantly by the courts, under the apprehension that fraud upon 
persons in dying condition might be encouraged by its extension. 
Bank notes were next embraced, with lottery tickets, and securities 
transferable by delivery, such as notes payable to bearer ^* or to order, 
and indorsed in blank, while notes not so payable were excluded. ^^ 
Subsequently it was extended to bonds,^ and the later cases hold that 
the note of a third party not negotiable, or if negotiable, not indorsed, 
but delivered, passes by such a donation, with a right to use the name 
of the personal representative of the promisee, to collect it for the 
donee's own use, the equitable title passing to him.^^ In further ex- 

17. Basket v. Hassell, 107 U. S. 609; Gass v. Simpson, 4 Coldw. 288; Parcher 
V. Saco Bkg. & Sav. Inst., 78 Me. 470; Nutt v. Morse, 142 Mass. 3; Walsh's 
Appeal, 122 Pa. St. 177; Kill v. Weaver, 94 N. C. 274; Connor v. Root, 11 Colo. 
183; Daniel v. Smith, 75 Cal. 548; Seybold v. Nat. Bank, 5 N. Dak. 460, 67 N. W. 
682; Plasterstein v. Hoes, 37 App. Div. 421, 56 N. Y. Supp. 103; Gammon The- 
logical Seminary v. Robbins, 128 Ind. 85, 27 N. E. 341. The same principle ap- 
plies to a gift inter vivos. Zeller v. Jordan, 105 Cal. 43, 38 Pac. 640. 

18. Miller v. Miller, 3 P. Wms. 356, in which case it was held that bank notes 
passed, but a note payable to the donor's order did not. Chitty on Bills (13th 
Am. ed.), 3. 

19. See Chase v. Redding, 13 Gray, 420. 

20. Snellgrave v. Bailey, 3 Atk. 214; Ward v. Turner, 2 Ves. Sr. 431; Duf- 
field V. Elwes, 1 Bligh, 409, in which case a bond with mortgage deeds deliv- 
ered to the donee was held to create a trust in his favor. Leyson v. Davis et al., 
17 Mont. 220, 42 Pac. 775. 

21. Chase v. Redding, 13 Gray, 418, in which case it was held that a gift mortis 
causa of promissory notes, secured by mortgages, with assignments of the mort- 
gages, was valid. Grover v. Grover, 24 Pick. 264; Sessions v. Moseley, 4 Cush. 
87; Turpin v. Thompson, 2 Mete. (Ky.) 420; Jones v. Deyer, 16 Ala. 221; Borne- 
man v. Sidlinger, 15 Me. 429; Brown v. Brown, 18 Conn. 410; McConnell v. 
McConnell, 11 Vt. 290; Parker v. Marston, 27 Me. 196; Tillinghast v. Wheaton, 
8 R. I. 536; Veal v. Veal, 29 L. J. Ch. 321, 27 Beav. 303; RankUn v. Weguelin, 
27 Beav. 309; Stevens v. Stevens, 2 Hun, 472; Druke v. Heiken, 61 Cal. 346, 44 
Am. Rep. 553; Byles on Bills (Sharswood's ed.), 295-296; Thompson on Bills, 
20, 21; Redfield on Wills, 312, 313. Contra, Bradley v. Hunt, 5 Gill & J. 54, in 
which case it is limited to bank notes and notes payable to bearer. 


tension of the principle, it has been held that, even if the donor indorse 
a bill or note of a third person as donatio mortis causa, the donation 
will be valid, although the estate of the indorser will not be bound 
upon his indorsement, as it is without consideration. And this seems 
to us at once a just extension and limitation of the principle.^^ This 
doctrine obtains in Scotland, where it has been decided in several 
cases; -^ and it has been carried even further in England, where it has 
been held that bills deUvered on death-bed, but without consideration, 
were valid gifts, and authorized the donees, in the first place, to force 
the donor's executors to indorse the bills, and, in the next place, to 
recover from the acceptors, the indorsation being regarded as a mere 
technicality,^^ In Louisiana, where, on the day before he died, 
plaintiff's testator delivered to defendant the check of another, pay- 
able to and indorsed by him in blank, and it was not presented until 
after the donor's death, it was held a valid gift causa morlis.^^ 

§ 24a. Deposits in bank may be the subject of a donatio mortis 
causa, and the doctrine obtains in the United States that the deliv- 
ery of a bank-book containing entries of deposits in bank with the 
intent to make the deposits a gift, l)y a person in contemplation of 
death, to the donee, constitutes a valid gift of the money deposited. '^^ 

22. Weston V. Hight, 17 Me. 287. 

23. Thompson on Hills, 20. In one case, whore a person had indorsed a bill 
for 1,000 marks to his grandson, then under age, and put it thus indorsed, but 
without particular instructions, into the hands of his son and general disponee 
(distributee), the court, in an action for deliver>' brought by the grandson, de- 
cerned (decreed) in his favor. In a later case, where the holder of two promissory 
notes indorsed them on his death-bed, and delivered them to a person, telling 
him to deliver one to a servant, as a reward for services, and the other to certain 
parties, as a mark of gratitude for past favors, the court sustained the right of 
the donees to sue the makers. 

24. Veal v. Veal, 29 L. J. Ch. 321, 27 Beav. 303; Rankin v. WegueUn, 27 
Beav. 309. 

25. Burke v. Bishop, 27 La. Ann. 465, 27 Am. Rep. 567. 

26. Citizens' Sav. Bank v. Mitchell, 18 I. R. 739, 30 Atl. 626; Hill v. Steven- 
son, 63 Me. 364; Drew v. Hagerty, 81 Me. 243; Camp's Appeal, 36 Conn. 88, 4 
Am. Rep. 39; Minor v. Rogers, 40 Conn. 512; Ray v. Simmons, 11 R. I. 266; 
Martin v. Funk, 75 N. Y. 134; Millspaugh v. Putnam, 11 Abb. Pr. 380; Tilling- V. Wheaton, 8 R. I. 536, Durfee, J., saying: "It is true we find no which 
is the exact parallel of the case before us, but the principle declared in the cases 
to which we have referred is broad enough to include the case before us; and 
therefore whatever, as a matter of wise pohcy, we may think of the expediency 
of holding a savings bank to be the subject of a gift mortis causa, we do not see 
how, as a matter of law, we can hold" Contra, McConnell v. Murray, 


Delivery of the bank-book of the depositor is all the delivery of which 
the subject is capable.-^ A certificate of deposit may also be the sub- 
ject of a valid gift causa mortis, but it must be indorsed and delivered 
to the donee so as to vest in him complete title, or so delivered without 
indorsement as to create an equitable assignment of the fund it 
represents, divesting the donor of all control and dominion over it.-^ 
In a number of cases it has been held that where a person deposits a 
sum in bank in his own name as trustee for another, and recognizes it 
as his, a complete and irrevocable gift is effected to the cestui que 
trust, ^^ and if the trustee withdraw the amount his personal representa- 
tive will be liable for it.^*^ The courts adopting these views rest them 
upon the grounds : that by entering the deposit to the credit of the 
depositor as trustee for another, a plain declaration of trust is made; 
accompanied by a formal transfer of the money which is the subject- 
matter to himself as trustee, that thereby the title passes; and that 
retention of the pass-book by the self-constituted trustee is not in- 
consistent with the intention to give the deposit to the cestui que trust, 

Irish R. 3 Eq. 460. Deposits in bank can likewise be the subject of a gift inter 
vivos. See Guinan's Appeal from Probate, 70 Conn. 342; Buckingham's Appeal 
from Probate, 60 Conn. 143; Scrivens v. North Easton Savings Bank, 166 Mass. 
255, 44 N. E. 251; Policy v. Hicks, 58 Ohio St. 218, 50 N. E. 809. Delivery of a 
pass-book in a saving bank to the donee is a sufficient delivery, but such delivery 
of a pass-book in an ordinary bank would not, as the depositor docs not thereby 
lose control over the deposit, Jones v. Weakley, 99 Ala. 441, 12 So. 420, 42 Am. 
St. Rep. 84. See also Thomas v. Lewis, 89 Va. 1, 15 S. E. 389, 37 Am. St. Rep. 

27. Martin v. Funk, 75 N. Y. 134; Whalen v. Milholland, 89 Md. 199, 43 Atl. 

28. Basket v. Hassell, 107 U. S. 613; Amis v. Witt, 33 Beav. 619; Moore v. 
Moore, L. R., 18 Eq. 474; Hewitt v. Kaye, L. R., 6 Eq. 198; Westerlo v. Dewitt, 
36 N. Y. 340; Emery v. Clough, 63 N. H. 552; Leyson v. Davis et al, 17 Mont. 
220, 42 Pac. 775; Telford v. Patton, 144 111. 611, quoting text, 33 N. E. 1119. 

29. Martin v. Funk, 75 N. Y. 134; Minor v. Rogers, 40 Conn. 512; Willis v. 
Smyth, 91 N. Y. 297. But the character of such transaction is not conclusively 
established by the mere fact of the deposits in the savings bank so as to preclude 
evidence of contemporaneous facts and circumstances, constituting the res gestce 
to show that the real motive of the depositor was not to create a trust but to 
accomplish some independent and different purpose inconsistent with an inten- 
tion to divest himself of the beneficial ownership of the fund. Macey v. WilUams, 
83 Hun, 243, 31 N. Y. Supp. 620. And subsequent acts or declarations of the 
depositor not connected with the deposit so as to constitute res gestce will not 
avail to defeat the trust. See Hyde v. Kitchen, 69 Hun, 280, 23 N. Y. Supp. 
573; Mize v. National Bank, 60 Mo. App. 358; Sayre v. Weil, 94 Ala. 466, 10 So. 

30. Milholland v. Whalen, 89 Md. 212; Minor v. Rogers, 40 Conn. 512. 


because the legal title remains in the trustee, although the beneficial 
interest has been transferred ; that the pass-book is not the property, 
but only the voucher for it; ^^ and that the trust is valid, although 
unknown to the beneficiary.^^ If the trust so declared rests upon a 
legal obligation,^^ and probably if upon a moral obligation,^'* it should 
be supported, and it is not needful to the validity of the trust that 
notice be given to the beneficiary.^'^ The intention of the trustee to 
pass the title must be clearly manifested, and if shown not to have 
existed, it would be defeated.'^'' A number of the cases turn rather 
upon the principles that control voluntary settlements than upon the 
peculiar doctrines of donatio mortis causa. But where the declaration 
of the trust is plainly made, as by an entry in a pass-book to the 
credit of the depositor as trustee for another, and it is shown to have 
been the depositor's intention that at his death the depositor should 
take the deposit, then, as it seems to us, it should be supported as a 
valid donatio mortis causa. 

§ 24b. Delivery to the donee, or some other person for him, is 
rcfiuisite to a valid donatio viorlis causa,"^^ as it is to gifts inter vivos,^^ 
but delivery may be symbolically or constructively madc.^'' And 
when the depositor causes the sum in bank to be credited to himself 
as trustee for another, it is deemed a sufficient delivery, as we have 
already seen.""' 

31. Milholland v. Whalcn, 89 Md. 212, 43 Am. St. Rep. 45; Martin v. Funk, 
75 N. Y. 1:M, Church, C. J. 

32. Hay v. Simmons, 11 R. I. 200, 23 Am. Rep. 266; Martin v. Funk, 75 N. Y. 

33. Brabrook v. Boston, etc., Sav. Bank, 104 Mass. 228. 

34. Brabrook v. Boston, etc., Sav. Bank, 104 Mass. 228. 

35. Brabrook v. Boston, etc., Sav. Bank, 104 228. 

36. Clark v. Clark, 108 Mass. 228; Met. Sav. Bank v. Murphy, 82 Md. 314, 
33 Atl. 640, 51 Am. St. Rep. 473; Sav. Bank v. McCarthy, 89 Md. 194, 42 Atl. 929. 

37. Hill v. Stevenson, 63 Me. 304; Dole v. Lincoln, 31 Me. 422; Wells v. Tucker, 
3 Binn. 360; Dunbar v. Dunbar, 80 Me. 154; Hatch v. Atkin.son, 50 Me. 324; 
Whalen v. MilhoUand, 89 Md. 199, 43 Atl. 45; McMahon v. Newton Sav. Bank, 
67 Conn. 80, 34 Atl. 709; Jennings v. Neville, 180 111. 270, 54 N. E. 202. 

38. Spooner v. Hilfish, 92 Va. 334, 23 S. E. 751; Ewing v. Ewing, 2 Leigh, 343; 
Miller v. Jeffress, 4 Gratt. 479; Lee v. Boak, 11 Gratt. 185. 

39. See post, §§ 03, 07; Bumey v. Ball, 24 Ga. 505; Darland v. Taylor, 52 
Iowa, 503; Stephenson v. King, 81 Ky. 425. 

40. The cases on this subject are too numerous, and their refinements too 
various and subtle, to admit of amplification in this work. Discussion of the 
subject may be found in Cent. L. J., Jan. 0, 1882, vol. 14, pp. 10, 18, 31 Am. 



§ 25. Donee's own note. — The donee's own note may l)e made 
a gift mortis causa, and its destruction by the donor, with intent 
that it be extinguished and released in the event of his death, would 
suffice to effect it."*^ Strict proof of the gift donatio mortis causa is 
requisite. A mere declaration of a gift alone is insufficient,^^ and the 
evidence should be closely scrutinized.^^ But the gift of the donor's 
own note as donatio mortis causa would not be valid, as his representa- 
tives might prove that it was without consideration; ''■' and so the 
draft of the donor on a third person who holds his funds it has been 
held is not an assignment thereof until accepted, and is not a valid 
mortuary gift.''^ The theory of the law is to throw the salutary checks 
which are found in the formal execution of wills around those who are 
associated with the donor in his dying condition; and to hold these 

Rep. 453, 26 Am. Rep. 684, and in followinp cases: Gerrish v. New Bedford In- 
stitution for Saving.s, 128 Mass. l.TO; Brabrook v. Boston, etc., Bank, 104 Mass. 
228; Clark v. Clark, 108 Miuss. 522; Powers v. Provident Ins. Co., 124 Mtuss. 377; 
Stone V. Bishop, 4 Cliff. (U. 8. C. C.) 593; Bla,s(l(>ll v. Locke, 52 N. II. 238; Howard 
V. Windham liank, 40 Vt. 597; Kerrigan v. Hantigan, 43 Conn. 17. 

41. Darland v. Taylor, 52 Iowa, 503. In this a lady holding her grand- 
son's notes destroyed them, stating that she did not expect to live long, and 
in case of her death did not desire that he may be compelled to pay them. Held 
a valid donatio mortis causa. To same effect, see Gardner v. Gardner, 22 Wend. 

42. Yancy v. Field, 85 Va. 761, 8 S. E. 721. 

43. Smith v. Smith, 92 Va. 696, 24 S. E. 280. 

44. Basket v. Hassell, 107 U. S. 612; Harris v. Clark, 3 N. Y. 93 (overruling 
Wright v. Wright, 1 Cow. 598); Raymond v. Sellick, 10 Conn. 480; Parish v. 
Stone, 14 Pick. 198; Warren v. Durfee, 126 Mass. 338; Irish v. Nutting, 47 Barb. 
370; Holley v. Adams, 16 Vt. 206. In Hamer v. Moore, 6 Ohio St. 239, the note 
ran: "For value received, I promise to pay to Mrs. Hamer, wife of John Hamer, 
the sum of $300, as a small recompense for the kindness shown to me by her. 
The executors of my last will and testament are hereby directed to pay the above 
to Mrs. H. or her sons, Moses and John, after my decease." Signed and attested. 
It was held invalid as a gift causa mortis. In Helfenstein's Estate, 77 Pa. St. 
328, H. made his note for the sum of $4,000, payable one year after date, to 
Treasurer of Theological Seminary, and delivered it to the chairman of the semin- 
ary library committee; subjoined to it was a statement that it was a donation, 
the interest of which was to be applied to the purchase of books for the seminary. 
Shortly afterward the maker died. Held, that the note, being without considera- 
tion, and not having been accepted by the trustees before the maker's death, was 
revoked thereby, and a subsequent acceptance of it was ineffective. Tracy v. 
Alvord, 118 Cal. 654, 50 Pac. 757, citing text. 

45. Harris v. Clark, 3 N. Y. 93; Craig v. Craig, 3 Barb. Ch. 76 (overruling 
Wright v. Wright, 1 Cow. 598); Billing v. Devaux, 3 Man. & Gr. 565. See Bay- 
ley on Bills, 348, intimating the contrary. See Lawson v. Lawson, 1 P. Wms. 
441, and post, § 26. 


dispositions valid would, in effect, dispense with the guards against 
fraud and imposition which are found in the rules which govern the 
authentication^ and probate of last testaments. "The very circum- 
stance," as has been said, "which sometimes renders a will suspicious, 
is the living principle in a donatio mortis causa." *^ But it would seem 
that the payee even of an undelivered bill could recover, in England, 
if it were attested in terms of the Wills Act.^^ 

§ 26. Whether donor's check is valid donatio mortis causa. — If 
a check of the donor be tlclivcrcd to tlio duuec; as duiuUiu mortis causa, 
and the donee transfers it for a present valuable consideration, or in 
discharge of a debt, or if it be paiil by the i^ank before it is apprised 
of the drawer's death, it seems to be conceded by the authorities that 
no court should or woukl take if from the donee, and that the gift 
woukl be sustained as a valid donatio mortis causa. '** But where none 
of these circumstances exist the gift is regarded as incomplete and 
invalid, the check Ix'iiig consitlered a manilate revoked by death, and 
the bank not being justified in paying it, if it is apprised of the drawer's 
death. '^ The better opinion, as we think, is that the l)ank would be 
justified in paying, unless in addition to knowing that the drawer was 
dead, it also knew that the check was a mere gift; ^ and even if it knew 
the latter fact we do not think that should change its right to pay. 
It is observed by Vice-Chancellor Malins that the law on the question 
considered here "seems to be in a very curious state," and that "the 
result of the authorities appears to be that a gift of a bill of exchange. 

46. Holloy V. Adums, 16 Vt. 206. 

47. Gou^h V. Finilon, 7 Exch. 48. 

48. Tate V. Ililbert, 2 Ves. Jr. 118, 4 Bro. C. C. 291; Rolls v. Pcarce, 5 Ch. 
Div. 730 (1877), 22 Mouk's Eng. Rep. 432. See § 1618a, posf. 

49. Ih'id.; Burke v., 27 La. Ann. 465; Matter of Smither, 30 Hun, 
632. In Biusket v. Ha-sscll, 107 U. S. 61.5, Matthews, J., says of a check that, 
"an shown by all the authorities, and upon the nature of the case it cannot be 
vahd as a doiuilio morlis cawia, even when it is payable in ■prccsenti, unless paid 
or accept etl while the donor is ahve; how much less so when, as in the present 
case, it is made payable only upon his death." But "all the authorities" do not 
sustain this view. In Simmons v. Savings Society, 31 Ohio St. 530, the bank was 
notified after drawer's death not to pay, and did not pay the check. Held, that 
check was revoked by drawer's death, and payee could not recover of his estate. 
In Thrasher v. Dyer, 69 Conn. 411, 37 Atl. 979, Hammersly, J., says: "Gift is 
not completed by mere delivery of a check, which remains unacted on in the hands 
of the payee." Sec jMst, § 16186; McXamara v. McDonald, 69 Conn. 485, 38 
Atl. 54, 61 Am. St. Rep. 48; Zeller v. Jordan, 105 Cal. 43, 38 Pac. 640. 

50. See -post, § 1618a, and notes. 


which is by its very nature payable at a future day, may be a good 
donatio mortis causa, but the gift of a check is not valid unless it is 
presented for payment, or paid before the death of the donor," and 
in respect to the case then under adjudication he expressed his opinion 
to be, that "when a man gives his wife a check it is in substance as 
complete a gift as if he had handed her the cash." ^^ 

Where a bill was drawn by the donor, in his last illness, on a gold- 
smith, to enable his wife to purchase mourning, it was held in an early 
case that it was valid as donatio viortis causa, and would operate like 
a direction of the testator touching his funeral, which ought to be 
observed though not in his will; " and, as said by the vice-chancellor 
in the case already cited, we " can see no reason why, if a bill drawn on 
a goldsmith would be a valid donatio mortis causa, a check should not 
be so too.-'"' It is clear that no donatio mortis causa can prevail against 
the creditors of the donor when his assets would be otherwise in- 
sufficient to satisfy their claims,^^ nor unless delivered; ^^ but when 
no such question arises, we see no reason why a check should not be 
supported as a valid disposition — as checks are generally regarded as 
the equivalent of cash. And consistently with the general principles 
that prevail as to donationcs mortis causa, the rule should be that bills 
or checks should be supported as such as to all parties, except in 
so far as to authorize suit against the decedent's estate. Being 
executory contracts as to the decedent and his estate, they are without 
consideration, and might be defended on that ground; but as to the 
drawees and other parties they should be upheld.^^ 

§ 26a. The validity of a gift causa mortis is to be determined by 
the law of the place where it was made, without regard to the domicile 
of the donor." 

51. Rolls V. Pearce, 5 Ch. Div. N. C. J. 730, 22 Moak's Eng. Rep. 436. At 
variance with the propositions stated in the text is the case of Matter of James, 
78 Hun, 12S, 28 N. Y. Supp. 992, which holds that checks given by a person, when 
djnng, to his wife, named in his will as executrix, in the absence of any evidence 
explaining why such checks were given, or the purpose for which they were re- 
ceived and used, must, upon her accounting as executrix, be treated as a part of 
the testator's estate, and be accounted for by her. (Dykman, J., dissenting.) 

62. Lawson v. Lawson, 1 P. Wms. 440 (1718). 

63. Rolls V. Pearce, 5 Ch. Div. 730, 22 Moak's Eng. Rep. 432. 

64. Chase v. Redding, 7 Gray, 418. 

65. Ward v. Turner, 2 Ves. Sr. 431. See Southern Law Review for April, 1875, 
p. 145, and ante, § 24. 

66. See ante, § 24. 

67. Emery v. Clough, 63 N. H. 552. 



§ 27. A bill of exchange is an opon letter addressed l)y one per- 
son to a second, directing him, in effect, to pay absolutely, and at all 
events, a certain sum of mone\' therein named, to a third person or to 
any other to whom that third person maj' order it to be paid; or it may 
be payable to bearer or to the drawer himself.^ 

1. The deBnitions of bills and notes are given as follows by various writers. 
Blarkstone defines a bill of exchange to be "an open letter of request from one 
man to another, desiring him to paj' a sum of money therein named to a third 
person on his account." 2 Bl. Com. 4GG. Bayley says: "A bill of exchange is a 
written order or request, and a promissory note a written, for the pay- 
ment of money absolutely and at all events." Bayley on Bills, 1. Chitty fol- 
lows Blackstone, and Chancellor Kent follows Bayley. Chitty on Bills, 1, 3 
Kent's Com. 74. Byles .says: ".\ bill of exchange is an unconditional written 
order from A. to B., directing B. to pay C. a .sum of money therein named." 
Byles (Sharswoof^l's e<l.), 1. And that ".\ promi.s.s«r>' note, or, jus it is frequently 
called, a note of hand, is an absolute in writing, signed, but not sealed, 
to pay a specifietl sum at a time therein limited, or on demand, or at sight, to a 
person therein nameil or designated, or to his order, or to the bearer." Byles 
(Sharswood's ed.) [*ol. In Story on Bills the definition of a bill given by Bayley 
is commended as concise, clear, and accurate. The learned author a<Ids however: 
"But here again its peculiar distinguishing (juality in modern times, its negotia- 
bility, is omitted, which, although not by our law cs-scntial to the instrument, 
is still that which, practically speaking, among merchants, constitutes its true 
character." Mr. Kyd has accordingly given the more extended definition, stat- 
ing it to be "an open letter of request, a<idres.scd by one person to a second, desir- 
ing him to pay a sum of money to a third, or to any other, to whom that third 
person .shall order it to be paid; or it may be payable to bearer." See Kyd on 
Bills, 3, and Story on Bills, § 3. Tiedemann .says: "A bill of exchange is an un- 
conditional WTitten order by one person on another, directing him to pay to a 
third person, or to his order, or to the bearer the sum of money therein namtnl." 
Tiedemann on Commercial Paper, § 2. In Randolph on Commercial Paper, 
§ 3, it is said: "A bill of Exchange is an unconditional order for the payment of 
a certain sum of money by the person addressed in it to the person in whose 
favor it is drawn." In Story on Promis.sory Notes it is said: "A promissory note 
may be defined to be a wTitten engagement by one person to pay another person, 
therein named, absolutely and unconditionally, a certain sum of money at a 
time s])ecified therein." Story on Notes, § 1. Without adopting the precise Ian- 



Abram, who draws the bill, is called the drawer; Benjamin, to 
whom it is directed, is called the drawee, and upon accepting it, be- 
comes the acceptor. Charles, to whom the bill is made payable, is 
called the payee. 

If the bill be payable to "Charles only," it is not negotiable; but if 
payable to "Charles or order," he may, by indorsing it, direct that it 
be paid to David, and in that case Charles becomes the indorser, and 
David the indorsee. 

§ 28. Definition of promissory note. — A promissory note or note 
of hand, as it is often called, is an open promise in writing by one 
person to pay another person therein named, or to his order, or 
to bearer, a specified sum of money absolutely and at all events.- 

gua^c of any author, wo have given herein definitions which seem to us more 
accurate than some others, and which, at le;ist, cannot he misleading. In Allen 
V. Leavens, 26 Oreg. 169, 37 Pac. 488, 46 Am. St. Rep. 613, citing text, the court 
held that a promise to accept the order of another with such other's name in- 
dorsed thereon is in no sense a bill of exchange. This case is reported in 26 L. R. A. 
620, with a useful note collecting the authorities on the validity of parol promises 
to accept orders or bills of exchange, (a) where the orders or bills have been drawn, 
and (b) where the orders or bills have not been drawn. See Woodall v. People's 
Nat. Bank, 153 Ala. 756, 45 So. 194; Culbertson v. Nelson, 93 Iowa, 187, 61 N. W. 
854, 57 Am. St. Rep. 266, quoting with approval the text; Bothwell v. Corum, 
135 Ky. 766, 123 S. W. 291; Mechanics' & Farmers' Sav. Bank v. Katterjohn, 137 
Ky. 427, 125 S. W. 1071; Vaughn v. Farmers', etc., Nat. Bank (Tex. Civ. App.), 
126 S. W. 690; Chamberlain v. Young (1893), 2 Q. B. 206. An order at the bot- 
tom of a bill for goods in the following words " Please pay [the creditor] the above 
bill, and oblige," signed by the debtor, is a bill of exchange. Knefel v. Planner, 
66 111. App. 209, affirmed 166 111. 147, 46 N. E. 762. 

2. Harris v. Pate (Ind. Ter.), 104 S. W. 812; Bick v. Clark, 134 Mo. App. 544, 
114 S. W. 1144, citing the text; Dobbins v. Oberman, 17 Neb. 165, citing the text; 
New York Security & Trust Co. v. Storm, 81 Hun, 33, 30 N. Y. Supp. 605; First 
Nat. Bank of Farmersville v. Greenville Bank, 84 Tex. 40, 19 S. W. 334, quot- 
ing text. In Hegeman v. Moon, 131 N. Y. 462, it was held that a written state- 
ment signed by the maker to the effect that a certain amount is due a person 
named, impUes that the money is due from the maker and is an indebtedness, 
from him to the person named. The acknowledgment of the indebtedness, and 
that it is due implies a promise to pay it on demand, in the absence of other direc- 
tion as to time of payment. Such an instrument is a promissory note, and as 
such imports a consideration by its terms. The instrument in question above de- 
fined was in the following form: 
"$1976 90-100 Brooklyn, Feb. 8th, 1871. 

"One year after my death I hereby direct my executor to pay to Joseph Hege- 
man, his heirs, executors or assignees, the sum of nineteen hundred and seventy 
six dollars, and ninety cents, being the balance due him for cash advanced at 


Abrain, who makes the note, is called the maker; Benjamin, to 
whom the promise is made to pay, the payee; and if the note is 
transferred from Benjamin to Charles by indorsement, they are 
termed respectively indorser and indorsee. If the transfer from 
Benjamin to Charles be by delivery merely, they are termed respec- 
tively assignor and assignee. 

The maker of a note is sometimes termed the drawer, and in 
accommodation indorsements the indorser frequently writes over 
his name: "Credit drawer." When the term "drawer" is so used, 
the maker is of course meant, though not accurately described. 

"Holder" is a general word applied to any one in actual or con- 
structive possession of the bill or note, and entitled at law to recover 
or receive its contents from the parties to it. 

§ 29. Difference between bills and notes. — In their original 
structure, a bill of exchange and promissory note do not strongly 
resemble each other. In a bill there are three original parties: drawer, 
drawee, and payee; in a note only two: maker and payee. In a bill 
the acceptor is the primary debtor. In a note the maker is the only 
debtor. But if the note be transferred to a third party by the payee, 
it becomes strikingly similar to a bill. The indorser becomes then, 
as it were, the drawer, the maker the acceptor, and the indorsee the 
payee.' The reader, bearing this similitude in mind, will ea.sily be 
able to apply to notes the decisions hereinafter cited concerning bills, 
and vice versa. 

§ 30. In order to fulfill the definition given, the paper must carry 
its full history upon its face, and embrace the following requisites: 

various times by liim to Adrian Hcgeman my son, and others, as per statement 
rendered by him this day, without interest. 

"Cornelia W. Hegeman." 

A draft, drawn by one officer as an authorized agent of a company on another 
officer of the same company in favor of a third person, is in effect the promissory 
note of the company payable on demand. National Fire Ins. Co. v. Eastern 
B. & L. Asso., 65 Neb. 483, 91 N. W. 482. "The essential elements of a promis- 
8or>' note are: first, that it must be in writing; second, it must contain, either 
express or implied, a to pay; third, the promise must be for the payment 
of a sum certain of money absolutely and at all events; fourth, the promise must 
be unincumbered with collateral agreements to do something else^, and fifth, the 
in.strument must indicate with certainty the parties to the contract. And under 
the old law it was essential that it be not sealed." Kessler v. Clayes, 147 Mo. 
App. 88, 125 S. W. 799. 

3. Penniman v. Alexander, 111 N. C 427, 16 S. E. 408, citing text. 


First. It must be open, that is, unsealed. Second. The engagement to 
pay must be certain. Third. The fact of payment must be certain. 
Fourth. The amount to be paid must be certain. Fifth. The medium 
of payment must be money. Sixth. The contract must be only for 
the payment of money. And Seventh. It is also essential to the opera- 
tion of the instrument that it should be delivered.^ 



§ 31. The first requisite of a bill is, that it shall be an "open letter" 
of direction— and of a note, that it shall be an open promise— for the 
payment of money. By the term "open" is meant "unsealed"; and 
though the instrument possess all the other requisites of a bill or note, 
its character as a commercial instrument is destroyed, and it becomes 
a covenant, governed by the rules affecting common-law securities, if 
it be sealed.^ It has been held, however, that the affixing of a seal to a 
bill is a mere superfluity, and does not interfere with its validity or 
negotiability; ^ but the doctrine of the text is supported by the highest 

§ 32. Seals to notes.— In respect to promissory notes, the same 
rules prevail. If a seal be affixed to a paper in the ordinary form 
of a note, its character as such is destroyed; and it is thereby con- 
verted into the deed or bond of the maker, who is then termed the 
obligor, and the instrument is not subject to the peculiar doctrines 
that are applicable to mercantile securities.^ An instrument binding 
the signers to pay a certain sum of money, and signed by some wdth, 

4. Certainty as to the payor and payee, the amount to be paid, and the terms 
of payment, is an essential element of a negotiable promissory note, and that cer- 
tainty must continue until the obligation is discharged. Randolph v. Hudson, 
12 Okl. 516, 74 Pac. 946. 

6. Edwards on Bills, 208, 210; Chitty on Bills (13th Am. ed.) [n6G], 190; 
Story on Bills, § 62; Story on Notes, § 55; Nicely et al. v. The Winnebago Nat. 
Bank of Rockford, 18 Ind. App. 30, 47 N. E. 476, citing text. 

6. Irwin v. Brown, 2 Cranch C. C. 314. 

7. Clegg V. Lemesurier, 15 Gratt. 108; Mann v. Sutton, 4 Rand. 253; Hop- 
kins V. Railroad Co., 3 Watts & S. 410; Clark v. Farmers' Mfg. Co., 15 Wend. 
256; Parks v. Duke, 2 McCord, 380; Lewis v. Wilson, 5 Blackf. 369; Helper v. 
Alden, 3 Minn. 332; Warren v. Lynch, 5 Johns. 239; Brown v. Jordhal, 32 Minn. 
135; Muse v. Dantzler, 85 Ala. 361; McCrummen v. Campbell, 82 Ala. 567; Raw- 
son V. Davidson, 49 Mich. 607; Laidley v. Bright, 17 W. Va. 779. 


and by others without, seals, is the bond of the former, and the promis- 
sory note of the latter, and one action of debt may be brought against 
all the parties.^ It appears indeed that anterior to the statute of 3 & 
4 Anne, already quoted,^ bonds were occasionally transferred by 
indorsement in like manner as bills and notes, but the practice did not 
ripen into a settled custom, and by the above-mentioned statute they 
were not included with notes in being declared negotiable. ^^ It is to 
be observed, however, that merely by attaching a seal to the signature 
does not make it a sealed instrument, unless there be a recognition of 
the seal in the body of the instrument by some such phrase as " witness 
my signature and seal," or "signed and sealed," for otherwise the 
door would be thrown open to frauds and forgeries, by the facility 
with which seals could be superadded.'^ Such is the view taken in 
Virginia; but it is conceded that the rule was otherwise at common 
law,'^ and there are decisions adhering to the common-law rule.'' 

8. Rankin v. Roler, 8 Gratt. 63. Where a note was signed by one person at 
the bottom un(lpr seal, and by another person across the back without a seal, 
both before delivery, the note is nonnegotiable as to the former and a negotiable 
promissory note aa to the latter. McLaughlin v. Braddy, 03 S. C. 433, 41 S. E. 
523, 90 Am. St. Rep. 681. 

9. See ante, § 5, note. 

10. HuUor V. Crips, 6 Mod. 29 (1704). Holt, C. J., declared that he ha^l de- 
sired to speak with two of the most famous merchants in I^ondon, and that they 
had told him that not only notes, but bonds for money, were transferred fre- 
quently and indorsed as bills of exchange. 

11. Jacks(jn v. Augusta Southern R. Co., 125 Ga. 801, 54 S. E. 697; Skrine v. 
Lewis, 68 Ga. 828; Humphries v. Nix, 77 Ga. 98; Weeks el al. v. Esler, 143 N. Y. 
374, .38 N. E. 377; Cromwell v. Tate's Exrs., 7 I^igh, 30.'); Pea.sley v. Boatwright, 
2 Leigh, 106; Clegg v. Lemeaurier, 15 Gratt. 108; Austin v. Whitlock, 1 Munf. 
487; Argenbright v. Campbell, 3 H. & M. 174; Jenkins v. Hart, 2 Hand. 446; 
Baird v. Blagrove, 1 Wash. 170. In .\nderson v. Bullock, 4 Munf. 442, the fol- 
lowing was held to be a promissory note, and the scroll annexed aa a seal to be 
mere surplusage: 

"$2,361.81 Richmond, October 10, 1801. 

"On or before the first day of February next, we bind ourselves, our heirs, exec- 
utors, or administrators, to pay Thomas and .\mos Ladd, or order, two thousand 
three hundred and sixty-one dollars and eighty-one cents. 

"Austin & Anderson, [L. S.j" 

A promissory note, concluding in the following language: "witness my hand 
and seal the date and year above written" — ^signed in the name of the maker by 
his mark, followed by a printed " [L. S.j," is an instrument under seal. Bankston 
v. Kennesaw Guano Co., 7 Ga. App. 573, 67 S. E. 679. 

12. Cromwell v. Tate's Exrs., 7 Leigh, 305; Clark v. Read, 12 D. C. App. 343. 

13. Trasher v. Everhart, 3 Gill & J. 246. 


§ 32a. Seals on corporate bills and notes. — The rule that if a 
seal be affixed to an instrument, its negotiable character is destroyed, 
was early applied to ))oth corporate bills ^^ and notes. ^'^ But the later, 
and apparently better considered cases, say that the presence of the 
seal of a corporation does not of itself render its instrument non- 
negotiable, as a corporate seal is equally ap[:)ropriat(^ as a means of 
evidencing its assent to be bound by a simple contract or by a spe- 

§ 33. Statutes as to sealed instruments. — In some of the States 
of the United States sealed instruments for the payment of money 
are placed by statute upon the same footing as bills and notes in 
respect to their negotiability, and the addition of a seal to a bill or 
note payable to order or bearer in no way impairs its negotiability. 
In others, bonds are made transferable, and may be sued upon in the 
name of the assignee, but the latter takes them subject to all defenses 
that were available to the original obligee. ^^ 

14. In Conine v. Junction & B. R. Co., 3 Houst. (Del.) 2S9, Gilpin, C. J., said: 
"Deeds or scaled instruments are not only of a much higher antiquity than bills 
of exchange, but they are of a totally different origin. They cannot be said to 
be made secundum w.sum mercatorum, since they find their recognition and validity 
in the more ancient rules of the common law. On the other hand, bills of ex- 
change find their origin and sanction in the usage and custom of merchants, the 
lex mercatoria, a particuilar or p(H;uliar system, which, being in th(» interest of 
commerce, became at length gradually engrafted into, and established as a part 
of the common law itself. * * * All contracts under seal are specialties, 
sealing and delivery being the particular form and ceremony which alter the na- 
ture and operation of the agreement. Forms, consecrated by time and usage, 
become substance. The seal is substance and changes the nature and operation 
of the contract. It seems to me, therefore, that the question which I have been 
considering is settled upon principle against plaintiffs. But however this may be, 
it has been held as settled upon authority for more than thirty years past." 

15. Clark v. Farmers' Mfg. Co., 15 Wend. (N. Y.) 256. In Weeks v. Esler, 
68 Hun (N. Y.), 518, 23 N. Y. Supp. 54, it was held that the seal affixed must 
have been the seal of the corporation and affixed by its authority. See also Chase 
Nat. Bank v. Faurot, 72 Hun (N. Y.), 373, 25 N. Y. Supp. 447. 

16. Rand v. Dovey, 83 Pa. St. 280; McLaughlin v. Boaddy, 63 S. C. 433, 41 
S. E. 523, 90 Am. St. Rep. 681; Central Nat. Bank v. Chariottesville, etc., R. 
Co., 5 S. C. 156. See also Auerback v. Le Sereur Mill Co., 28 Minn. 291, under a 
statute relating to corporate bonds and notes, and Landauer and Sioux Falls 
Improvement Co., 10 S. Dak. 205, 72 N. W. 467, under a general statute. 

17. See the statutes of the several States, and Farrar v. Bank of New York, 
90 Ga. 331, 17 S. E. 87; Christian v. Parrott, 114 N. C. 215, 19 S. E. 151; Rail- 
way Co. V. Lynde, 55 Ohio St. 23, 44 N. E. 596; Marble Falls Ferry v. Spitler, 7 
Tex. Civ. App. 82, 25 S. W. 985. A note signed in a partnership name under 


Under Negotiable Instrument statute. — Under the statute, an instru- 
ment in the form of a promissory note, but under seal, is negotiable. ^^ 

§ 34. Scrolls used as seals. — A scroll affixed as a seal is gener- 
ally of the same force as a seal,'^ and parol evidence, where such is the 
case, is admissible to show that a scroll affixed was intended as a seal.^ 



§ 35. In the second place the engagement to pay must be certain. 
— Therefore tlie 1)111 must contain a certain direction, and the note 
a certain promise to pay. A bill is in its nature the demand of a right, 
not the mere asking of a favor, and therefore a supplication made, or 
authority given to paj' an amount, is not a bill. The language, 
"Mr. Little, please to let the bearer have £7, and place it to my 
account, and you will much oblige your humble servant," was held 
not a bill; ~^ and so "please to send £l() by bearer, as I am so ill I 
cannot wait upon you;" ^^ but on the other hand, where the language 
was: "Mr. Nelson will much oblige Mr. Webb by paying I. Ruff, or 
order, on his account, twenty' guineas," was held to import on order, 
and therefore a good bill.-'^ The usual and appropriate expression 
used in bills is, "please pay," and it has been well said by Justice 
Story that the language should not be too nicely scanned, nor be 
regarded because of its politeness as asking a favor rather than de- 

8cal is tho simple contract of the firm, regariling the seal aa surplusage. Cowan, 
MrClung & Co. v. Cunningham <fe Ward, 146 N. C. 453, 59 S. E. 992. The cus- 
tom of putting a seal upon a promissory note ha.s come about, not through a do- 
siro on the part of those making and taking such papers to foreclose the question 
of consideration, but chiefly to make the period of the statute of limitations ap- 
plicable thereto that of a sealed instrument instead of that governing a simple 
contract. Lacey v. Hutchinson, 5 Ga. .\pp. 865, 64 S. E. 105. 

18. Appendix, sec. 6; St. Paul's Episcopal Church v. Fields, 81 Conn. 670, 72 
Atl. 145. 

19. Giles V. Maulden, 7 Rich. 11; Osbom v. Kistler, 35 Ohio St. 99; Peasley v. 
Boatwright, supra. Contra, Blackwell v. Hamilton, 47 Ala. 470. 

20. Pollock V. Glassell, 2 Gratt. 439. 

21. Little V. Slackford, 1 Moody & M. 371; Nicely el al. v. The Winnebago Nat. 
Bank of Rockford, IS Ind. App. .30, 47 N. E. 476, citing text. 

22. The King v. Ellor, 1 Leach Cr. Law, 323. 

23. Ruff V. Webb, 1 Esp. 129. 


manding a right.^^ It is a perfectly valid phrase, being a mere form 
of civility.^^ "Please let the bearer have $50; I will arrange it with 
you this forenoon," and signed, "yours, most obedient," was held 
sufficient in Kentucky.^® An instrument directing a certain person to 
deliver a particular sum to A. B., or to be accountable or responsible 
to him for a particular sum, would be a good bill,'^ and so would a 
direction to credit him in cash for a particular sum,^ or any expression 
from which such direction could be inferred. 

§ 36. Certainty of promise in a note. — A promissory note must 
contain a certain promise to pay. "1 promise to pay, or cause to be 
paid," would suffice, because the undertaking that the payment be 
made is definite and certain.^^ It is said by Story, that " it seems that 
to constitute a good promissory note, there must be an express 
promise upon the face of the instrument to pay the money; for a mere 
promise implied by law, founded upon an acknowledged indebtedness, 
will not be sufficient." ^° But we think the better language is used 
by Byles, who says: "No precise words of contract are necessary, pro- 
vided they amount, in legal effect, to a promise to pay." ^^ In other 
words, if over and above the mere acknowledgment of debt, there 
may be collected from the words used a promise to pay it, the instru- 
ment may be regardc^d as a promissory note.^- 

24. Story on Bills, § 33; Chitty, 150; Thompson, 6. 

25. Patterson v. Poindextor, G Watts & S. 235; Whcatlcy v. Strobe, 12 Cal. 92; 
1 Ames on Bills and Notes, 3; Jarvis v. Wilson, 46 Conn. 90. 

26. Bresenthal v. Williams, 1 Duv. 329. 

27. Morris v. Lee, 2 Ld. Raym. 1396. 

28. Ellison v. Collingride, 9 C. B. 570; Allen v. Sea Fire, etc., Ins. Co., 9 C. B. 
574. But see WooUey v. Sergeant, 3 Halst. 262, contra. 

29. Lovell V. Hill, G Car. & P. 23S; Caviness v. Rushton, 101 Ind. 500. Here 
the language was, "I promise to give Emily Caviness two thousand dollars at 
my death, which she claims of my estate." Held insufficient to support an action. 
An instrument with the words "Hibbard, Spencer & Co., Cartage Ticket, 50 
cents," in print, and the name "Hibbard, Spencer & Co." signed in writing, was 
held not to be negotiable paper. Hibbard v. Holloway, 13 111. App. 101 ; Kirsch 
V. Braun, 153 Ind. 247, 53 N. E. 1082. "This note subject to conditions of 
hotel purchase contract of even date herewith," is not a negotiable note. 
Rieck V. Daigle, 17 N. D. 364, 117 N. W. 346 (1908). 

30. Story on Promissory Notes, § 14; Rice v. Rice, 68 Ala. 217. 

31. Byles on Bills, 8. 

32. Cowan v. Hallack, 9 Colo. 578, citing the text. One C. W. Bishop exe- 
cuted an instrument in writing, as follows: 

"$1,000.00 "Penn Yan, July 23, 1883. 

"At my death, I request to be paid to Mary A. Chase one thousand dollars, 


§ 36a. Due-bills. — In England it seems to be well settled that 
an ordinary due-bill, which is there frequently given in the following 

"London, 1st January, 1875. 
"Mr. A. B.: 

"I. O. U. £100. 

"C. D." 

does not amount to a promissory note, but is mere evidence of an 
account stated, requiring no stamp under the English Stamp Acts. 
This was the view taken by Lord Chief Justice Eyre in 1795, where the 
paper ran, "I. O. U. eight guineas," ^^ and though in 1800 Lord Eldon 
held a similar paper to be a promissory note, and ruled it out when 
offered in evidence, because it had no stamp,^^ subsequent decisions 
have recurred to the doctrine of Chief Justice Eyre, and it is the es- 
tablished law of England. ^^ 

In the United States the decisions are conflicting. In some of 
them a naked due-bill is held to be a promissory note; ^ as in Illinois, 
for instance, where the paper ran, "Due G. S. W., five hundred and 
twenty-five dollars," ^^ and in Missouri, where the words were, "Due 
B., one hundred and fifty dollars," ^ and in Arkansas, "Balance due 

for value received, if she is my wife; this note is void if I should die before she 
is my wife; this is to be paid in full with interest; this is to be paid before any- 
thing else." Held, that the instrument contains no promise to payee, and is 
therefore not a promi.ssor>' note. Hatch v. Gillette, 8 App. Div. 605, 40 N. Y. 
Supp. 1016. 

33. Fisher v. Leslie, 1 Esp. 425. 

34. Guy v. Harris, Chitty on Bills, 526. 

36. Israel v. Lsrael, 1 Campb. 499, Lord EUenborough. The paper ran: "I 
owe my father £470." Childers v. Boulnois, Dowl & Ry. 8; Payne v. Jenkins, 
4 Car. & P. 325; Fesenmayer v. Adcock, 16 M. & W. 449; Tompkins v. Ashby, 
6 B. & C. .541, 9 Dowl. & Ry. 543. 

36. Fleming v. Burge, 6 Ala. 373; Brewer v. Brewer, 6 Ga. .588; Marrigan v. 
Page, 4 Humphr. 247; Cummings v. Freeman, 2 Humphr. 145 (overruling Read 
V. Wheeler, 2 Yerg. 50); Agens v. Agens, 50 N. J. Eq. 566, 25 Atl. 707; Kessler v. 
Clayes, 147 Mo. App. 88, 125 S. W. 799. 

37. Jacquin v. Warren, 40 111. 4.59. 

38. Brady v. Chandler, 31 Mo. 28. A due-bill is not a negotiable note when it 
does not contain the words "for value received," under section 457, Rev. St. 1899, 
but it is a promissory' note though it does not contain an express promise to pay 
as the word "due" imports a promise, and under a statute providing that all 
instruments of writing ma<le and signed containing a promise to pay any sum of 
money shall import a consideration, such an instrument imports a consideration. 
(Rev. Stat. 1899, section 894.) Locker v. Kuecheumiester, 120 Mo. App. 701, 
98 S. W. 92. 


P. & S., $178, for work done." ^'■' In others such a paper is held to be 
a mere acknowledgment of indebtedness."*" 

§ 37. The question seems to us simply one of intention. If a 
debtor give a mere due-bill to his creditor containing nothing but an 
acknowledgment of the debt, it is fair to presume that he merely 
designed to furnish him with evidence of its existence. The law im- 
plies a promise to pay from the existence of the debt ; but that promise 
not being written on the note, it cannot be regarded as a promissory 
note. To be a "promissory note," the promise must not only be 
implied from the fact of indebtedness evinced by tlie note, but should, 
be expressed in the note in so many words, or by necessary implica- 

This was the ruling in IMaine where the paper was signed by the 
president of the corporation with his personal signature only, and ran, 
"Amount due C E. Ward to date $28.20"— the court considering 
that it was a mere voucher of the amount due, that it was without 
consideration as a note, and should not l)e so regarded. '- 

§ 38. There may be words superadded to the acknowledgment 
however, from which an intention to accompany it with an engage- 
ment to pay may be gathered. Thus, m New York, the words, " Duo 
S., or bearer, $340, for value received, with interest," were held to 
constitute a note; ^^ so in the same State, the words, "Due A. B., or 
bearer, two hundred and 26-100, for value received "; '*" in Maine, 
the words, "Good to bearer," ^^ and in that state, "Due A. B., or 
order, $20, on demand," ^^ and in Tennessee, "Due J. C. R., or or- 
der," ^"^ were held sufficiently obligatory to constitute a promissory 

39. Anderson v. Pearce, 36 Ark. 293; St. Louis R. Co. v. Camden Bank, 47 
Ark. 545. 

40. Currier v. Lockwood, 40 Conn. 348; Read v. Wheeler, 2 Yerg. 50; Gay v. 
Rooke (Mass.), 23 N. E. 835. This case hokis an I. O. U. to be not a note. 

41. Long V. Straus (Ind.), 4 West. 235; Kessler v. Clayes, 147 Mo. App. 88, 
125 S. W. 799. 

42. Ward v. Barrows, 86 Me. 148, 29 Atl. 922. 

43. Sackett v. Spencer, 29 Barb. 180. In Colorado, the words, "Due A. $250, 
vakiG received," are held sufficient by force of statute. Lee v. Balcom, 9 Colo. 
216; Lowe v. Murphy, 9 Ga. 338; Schmitz v. Hawkeye Gold Mining Co., 8 S. Dak. 
544, 67 N. W. 618. 

44. Russell v. Whipple, 2 Cow. 536. 

45. Hussey v. Winslow, 59 Me. 170. 

46. Carver v. Hayes, 47 Me. 257. 

47. Marrigan v. Page, 4 Humphr. 247. 


note. So in New Hampshire the language, "Good R. C, or order, 
for thirty dollars, borrowed money," '*^ and in Arkansas, "Due I. H., 
or order, value received," has been given the like effect.^^ In these, 
as in other cases, the insertion of negotiable words have been justly 
construed as manifesting an intention to make the instrument promis- 
sory and negotiable, and they have been given effect accordingly.^ 

§ 39. The words " on demand " as importing promise. — The in- 
sertion of "on demand" has been thought, in itself, sufficient to show- 
that the debtor intended to do more than merely state the balance 
due on account. It recognizes an obligation, and necessarily implies 
a promise to pay when demanded. This view was taken in Connecti- 
cut, where the words used were, "Due John Allen, $94.91, on de- 
mand," Smith, J., saying: "Where a writing contains nothing more 
than a bare acknowledgment of a debt, it does not, in legal construc- 
tion, import an express promise to pay; but where a writing imports 
not only the acknowledgment of a debt, but an agreement to pay it, 
this amounts to an express contract." ^^ And the like view has ob- 
tained in other cases. The mere addition of the words "value re- 
ceived," would not alone, it seems, import a promise in addition to 
the acknowledgment," though it has been held otherwise." But, 

48. Franklin v. March, 6 N. H. 364; Huyck v. Meador, 24 Ark. 195; Cummings 
V. Freeman, 2 llumphr. 144. 

49. Huyck v. Moiulor, 24 Ark. 192. 

60. J()hnt«»n Sch<Hjl Township v. Citizens' Bank, 81 Ind. 515. 

51. Smith V. Allen, .5 Day, 3.'i7. .\n instniraent "For value reeeive<J of C. P. 
Coleman three hundreil dollar, in full, with use or hearer, waiving valuation and 
appraisement laws. Paid when kalil for," i.s a note payable generally, at no par- 
ticular place, on demand, and i.s a pn)missor>' note. Kraft v. Thomaa, 123 Ind. 
513, 24 N. E. 346, 18 Am. St. Rep. 345. 

62. Read v. Wheeler, 2 Yerg. 50 (ovcrrule<l by Cummings v. I'>eeman, 2 
Humphr. 143); Gray v. Bowden, 23 Pick. 282; Currier v. Lockwood, 40 Conn. 
34S, .\m. Law Reg., Jan., 1K75. Judge Redfield, in a note to this, dissents 
from its conclu.sions, as did also two of the judges (Foster and Phelps), who were 
members (jf the court which decidtnl it. Judge Redfield says: "A promissory 
note is not requireti to be in any particular form, much less to embrace the word 
'promise.' .\11 that is required is that the written terms used, in their proper 
legal construction, shall import an admission by the maker that he holds himself 
bound to pay the payee a definite sum of money at a definite time; or, no time 
being namcfl, then presently on demand." See also in accord with decision in 
Currier v. Lockwoo<l, the following cases: Davis v. Allen, 3 N. Y. 168 (semble); 
HotchkLss v. Mo.sher, 48 N. Y. 478 (semble). 

63. Pmney v. Shiriey, 7 Mo. 42; McGowen v. West, 7 Mo. 42. See Huyck v. 
Meador, 24 .\rk. 192; Lee v. Balcom, 9 Colo. 216. 


"Due A. B., $325, payable on demand," ^'' or, " I acknowledge myself 
indebted to A. in £109, to be paid on demand, for value received," ^^ 
or "I. O. U. £85, to be paid May 5th," ^« would constitute promissory 
notes, significance being given to the words of payment as indicating 
a promise." 

§ 40. The words, " I undertake to pay A. B. a certain sum for a suit 
of clothes ordered by Daniel Paige," have been held to be a guarantee 
and not a note.^*^ Th(>re are other memoranda of indebtedness which 
have been held, like bare due-bills, not to amount to notes. Thus, a 
memorandum, "Mr. T. has left in my hands $200," is not a note.^^ 
And the following papers: 

" I have received the sum of , which I borrowed from you, 

and I have to be accountable for the said sum with interest,"^" 

and "I. O. U. , which I borrowed of Mrs. Mclanotte, and to 

pay her five per cent, till paid," ^^ have been held not notes, because 
not importing promises to pay. 

So, in a written bargain for buying goods, a promise to pay the 
seller the price in a limited time is not a note, but a mere memorandum 
of the terms of the bargain.*^^ j^ut more expressions of gratitude, 
where there is a promise, or other needless addition, will not deprive 
the instrument of its character as a bill or note.^' 

54. Kimball v. Huntington, 10 Wend. 675; Mitchell v. Rome R. Co., 17 Ga. 
574; Pepoon v. Stagg, 1 Nott & McC. 102. 

55. Casborne v. Button, 1 Selwyn's N. P. 401. 

56. Waithman v. Elzee, 1 C. «fe K. 35. 

57. Cowan v. Hallack, 9 Colo. 578, citing the text. 

58. Jarvis v. Wilkins, 7 M. & W. 410, Lord Abinger, C. B., saying: "This is 
a memorandum that if the plaintiff will sell Paige clothes, he, the defendant, wiU 
pay for them." 

59. Tompkins v. Ashby, 6 B. & C. 541, 1 Moody & M. 32. 

60. Home v. Redfearne, 4 Bing. N. C. 433. 

61 Melanotte v. Teasdale, 13 M. & W. 216. See also Taylor v. Steele, 16 
M. & W. 665; Hyne v. Dawdney, 21 L. J. R. 278; Gay v. Rooke (Mass.), 23 N. E. 

62. Ellis V. Ellis, Gow. 216. 

63. Ellis V. Mason, 7 Dowl. 598. 




§ 41. In the third place the fact of payment must be certain. — 

The instrument must be payable unconditionally, and at all events, 
in order to be negotiable. If the order or promise be payable pro- 
vided terms mentioned are complied with ; as, for instance, that a rail- 
road be built to a certain point by a certain time, it is not a bill or 
note; ^^ and likewise if payable provided a certain act be not done; ^^ 
or that a certain receipt be produced ; ^^ or another person shall not 
previously pay; ®^ or provided a certain ship shall arrive ;^^ or provided 
the maker shall be able ; '^^ or provided the maker shall live a certain 
time;''" or "on account of contract when completed and satisfac- 
tory;"^^ or provided one person shall first pay another a certain 
sum,^^ or upon any contingency J' Sometimes a condition of time is 

64. Blackman v. Lehman, 63 Ala. 547; Eldrod v. Malloy, 2 Colo. 320; Chitty 
on Bills, 134; Kingston v. Long, reported in Bayley on Bills (6th ed.), 16; Ames 
on Bills and Notes, vol. 1, p. 31. 

65. A[)pleby v. Bwldolph, 8 Mod. 363; Chitty, Jr., on Bill.s, 5, 246,— some- 
times, citetl as Appleby v. Biddle; Van Zandt v. Hopkins, 1.51 111. 248, citing 
text, 37 N. E. 845. An instrument promising to pay a certain sum in money at a 
certain time, but containing an express condition that it is " void and nonjjayable" 
upon the happening of a certain event, and stating that it was given to indemnify 
a certain p)erson against loss in a particular matter, is not a promissory note but 
a contract of indemnity only. Jenckes v. Rice, 119 la. 451, 93 N. W. 384. 

66. MiLson V. Metcalf, 8 Baxt. 440. 

67. Roberts v. Peake, 1 Burr. 323. 

68. Coolidge V. Ruggles, 15 Miuss. 387; Palmer v. Pratt, 2 Bing. 185. 

69. Kx parte Tootle, 4 Ves. 372; Salinas v. Wright, 11 Tex. 572. 

70. Braham v. Bubb, Chitty on Bills (13th ed.), ♦135, 136. 

71. Home Bank v. Drumgooie (N. Y.), 15 N. E. 747; Lawrence v. Phipps, 
67 Hun. 61, 22 N. Y. Supp. 16. 

72. Cha{)man v. \^' right, 79 Me. 595. 

73. Sloan v. McCarty, 134 245; Nicely et al. v. The Winnebago Nat. 
Bank of Rockford, 18 Ind. App. 30, 47 N. E. 476, citing text; Succession of Ra- 
basse, 49 La. Ann. 1405, 22 So. 767. The following instruments, because contain- 
ing conditions or contingent stipulations, have been held not to be negotiable: 
a draft, issued by a benefit society, payable on presentation of a certain certif- 
icate properly released (Knights & Ladies of Security v. Hibernian Banking Assn., 
137 111. .\pp. 175); a note payable "upon publication" (Hovorka v. Hemmer, 
108 111. App. 443); an instrument agreeing on the part of the promisor to pay or 
cause to be paid to the payee a certain sum in she should remain with him 
as his housekeeper, companion, and nurse, and should perform these duties and 



expressed by the word "when," as "when A. shall marry;" ^^ " when 
a certain suit is determined ;" ^° "when a certain sale is made;""^ 
or "certain dividends declared;" " or "upon completion of work to be 
done on a dwelling-house;" "^ or "not to be paid unless I shall have the 
use of certain premises;" ^^ "when a certain amount is collected ;"*° 
or "when the estate of M. is settled up;" ^^ "after arrival and dis- 
charge of coal by brig A," ^^ 

In Massachusetts a ninety-day note for $500 was held not nego- 
tiable, because it contained the proviso: "as soon as $400 shall be 
received by the payees, then this note is to be given up to payor." ^^ 

So, if it be expressed to be "payable subject to the pohcy;"^"* 
or subject to a certain contract; ^^ or if an order be given on a savings 

care for him until death (Russel v. Close's Estate, 83 Neb. 232, 119 N. W. 515); 
and an instrument containing a promise to pay a certain sum "on the day after 
my nomination for county clerk in the year 1900." Harris v. Firth (N. J.), 68 
Atl. 1064. In Aden v. Doub, 146 N. C. 10, 59 S. E. 162, Walker, J., said that it 
is not a correct proposition in law that a negotiable instrument is of such high 
dignity, as a medium of exchange, that the parties cannot annex any lawful 
condition to its payment at the time it is given, when the action to recover it is 
between the original parties to it, and this as to a collateral agreement to the effect 
that the maker should have one month after the date of the note to determine 
whether he would take the policy of insurance, and, if he decided not to accept it, 
then the note is to be void. 

74. Pearson v. Garrett, 4 Mod. 242; Beardsley v. Baldwin, Stra. 1157; Ahl- 
strong v. Fitzpatrick, 17 Mont. 295, 42 Pac. 757. 

75. Shelton v. Bruce, 9 Yerg. 24. 

76. De Forest v. Frary, 6 Cow. 151; Hill v. Halford, 2 B. & P. 413. 

77. Brooks v. Hargreaves, 21 Mich. 255. 

78. Chandler v. Carey, 64 Mich. 238. An instrument promising to pay: "On 
or before one year after the date of the completion of the piling filling and of the 
premises described in a certain trust deed * * * j gaid completion of piling 
and fining to be according to the requirements of a certain agreement * * * • 
the date of said completion of piling and filling to be determined by the board 
of commissioners," is not a promissory note, and cannot be reissued by the maker. 
190 111. Trust, etc., Bank v. Chicago Title, etc., Co., 92 111. App. 366, affirmed 
404, 60 N. E. 586, 83 Am. St. Rep. 138. 

79. Jennings v. First Nat. Bank, 22 Pac. 777, citing the text. 

80. Corbett v. State of Georgia, 24 Ga. 287; Martin v. Shumatte, 62 Tex. 189. 

81. Husband v. EpUng, 81 111. 172. 

82. Grant v. Wood, 12 Gray, 220; The Lykus, 36 Fed. 922. 

83. Hubbard v. Moseley, 11 Gray, 170. See also Roads v. Webb, 91 Me. 411, 
40 Atl. 128, 64 Am. St. Rep. 246. 

84. American Exchange Bank v. Blanchard, 7 Allen, 332. But a mere note 
of the number of the policy for which the note was given would not vitiate its 
negotiability. Union Ins. Co. v. Greenleaf, 64 Me. 123. See § 797. 

85. Gushing v. Field, 70 Me. 50. 


bank with a memorandum thereon "the bank-book of the depositor 
must accompany this order," ^ it is not negotiable. And so if ex- 
pressed "as per agreement," ^^ or "given as collateral security with 
an agreement," ^ or "unless a certain other note shall not be paid;" ^^ 
and a note containing a provision that the payee, or his assigns, may 
extend the time of payment thereof, is not negotiable.^" But the 
words, "as per memorandum of agreement," were not considered to 
render the promise conditional in an English case.®^ In all these cases 
the contingency implied deprives the instrument of its character as 
a bill or note, as the events named may never happen. If payable 
in installments, no time for the payment of the installments being 
mentioned, it is not a promissory note.^^ In Illinois, where the prom- 
ise was to pay a railroad company or order, a certain sum, in such 
installments, and at such times as the directors of the payee company 
might assess or require, it was held negotiable, and in effect payable 
on demand, or in installments on demand.^' 

86. White v. Gushing, 88 Me. 342, 34 Atl. 164, 51 Am. St. Rep. 402. 

87. Bank of Sherman v. Apperson, 4 Fed. 25. 

88. Costello V. Crowell, 127 293. 

89. Grimison v. Rus.sell, 14 Nebr. .521, 45 Am. Rep. 126. 

90. Woodbury v. Robcrt.s, .59 Iowa, 348, 44 Am. Rep. 685; Rosenthal v. Rambo, 
165 Ind. 584, 76 N. E. 404, 3 L. R. A. (N. S.) 678; Evans v. Odem, 30 Ind. App. 
207, 65 N. E. 755; Gity Nat. Bank v. Gunter Bros., 67 Kan. 227, 72 Pac. 842; 
Smith V. Van Blarcom, 45 Mich. 371; Goffin v. Spencer, 39 Fed. 262. But in 
Farmer, Thomp.son & Hclsell v. Bank of Graettinger, 1.30 la. 469, 107 N. W. 
170, it was held that a promissory note in ordinary form except this provision: 
"sun'tios hereby consent that time of payment may be extended from tim(! to 
time without notice thereof" was not negotiable, and, commentinK on the Wood- 
bury V. Roberts ciuse, supra, the court said: "We may concede that in the 
of an instrument i)roviding in terms for extension of time of payment indefinitely 
there is such uncertainty as to make the same nonnegotiable. * ♦ * But, 
in the notes before us, we have a distinct and unqualified agreement on the part 
of the makers to pay on a certain date. And we perceive no good reason for 
holding that the negotiable character thereof is destroyed because of a clause 
embodi('d therein providing that a surety, if such there shall be, will not claim a from his collateral liability on the instrument, if, forsooth, an extension 
of time shall be granted the makers without notice to him." And in National 
Bank of Gommerce v. Kenney, 98 Texas, 293, 83 S. W. 368, it was said that 
when the extension meant is that which takes place when the debtor and creditor 
make an agreement for a valuable consideration for the payment of the debt on 
some day subsequent to that previously stipulated, the note is negotiable. See Gity Nat. Bank v. Goodhue-McGlelland Gom. Go., 93 Mo. App. 123. 

91. Jury v. Baker, El., Bl. & El. 459. 

92. Moffat V. Edwards, Gar. & M. 16. See post, § 48. 

93. White v. Smith, 77 111. 351. 


Under Negotiable Instrument statute. — Under the statute^"* it has 
been held that a note which upon its face states that it is given as a 
"part of the purchase price of real property, and is secured by mort- 
gage of even date herewith, and is subject to all the terms and condi- 
tions of said mortgage," the mortgage referred to giving the maker of 
the note an option to pay it, or to have it canceled within one year, is 
not a negotiable instrument.'-'^ 

§ 42. In England, it has been held that an order for a certain sum 
"l)ayable ninety days after sight or when realized," was not a bill, as 
the latter alternative made it payable upon a contingency ,^'' but this 
is not the view which prevails in such cases in the United States." 

§ 43. Authorities in the United States. — In the United States, 
if the time must certainly come, although the particular day is not 
mentioned in the note, it is regarded as negotiable, as the fact of 
payment is then certain. Thus, where the note ran, "I promise to 
pay A. B., or bearer, $75 one year from date, with interest annually, 
and if there is not enough realized by good management in one year, 
to have more time to pay, in the manufacture of the plaster bed on 
Stearns' land," it was held negotiable, Pierpont, C. J., saying that the 
only uncertainty was as to the length of time to be given, and "this 
uncertainty the law makes certain by giving him a reasonable time 
thereafter (the time prescribed) to make the payment." ^^ So, where 
the note ran, "to be paid as soon as collected from my accounts at 
P.," it was held that the phrase was not intended to make the debt 
conditional, but only to prescribe that a reasonable time be allowed 
for collection of the accounts.^^ So, where the note was to pay "by 

94. Appendix, sec. 1 (2). 

95. Hull V. Angus (Ore.), 118 P. 284. 

96. Alexander v. Thomas, 16 Q. B. 333. 

97. See Charlton v. Reed, 61 Iowa, 166, Day, J., saying that the English view 
"is not recognized in the United States as announcing the correct rule" and ap- 
proving the text. 

98. Capron v. Capron, 44 Vt. 412 (1872); Riker v. Sprague Mfg. Co., 14 R. I. 
402 (1884), citing the text, where reservation in a note to pay it before maturity 
in installments of not less than 5 per cent., whenever semi-annual interest falls 
due, was held not to render it nonnegotiable. See also Campbell v. Equitable 
Securities Co., 17 Colo. App. 417, 68 Pac. 788. In Missouri-Lincoln Trust Co. v. 
Long, 31 Okl. 1, 120 P. 291, it was held that a note is negotiable though it con- 
tains a clause that the maker consents that the time for payment may be extended 
without notice thereof. 

99. Ubsdell v. Cunningham, 22 Mo. 124 (1855). And a note which contains 


20th of May, or when he completes the building according to con- 
tract," it was held that the 20th of May fixed the ultimate day when 
it should fall due.^ So, where the promise was to pay "against the 
19th of December, or when the house John Mayfield has undertaken 
to build for me is completed," the like decision was made.^ So, where 
a promise to pay on or before March 12, 1882, contained the further 
provision, "this note becomes due and payable when (if before 
March 12, 1882) A. B. & Co. shall dispose of a part or all of their 
interest in the New York Hotel, or when the interest of B. may be 
sold or disposed of." ^ So a note payable on or before a certain day; * 
for, as said in such a case by Cooley, J.: "The legal rights of the 
holder are clear and certain; the note is due at a time fixed, and it is 

provision authorizing an attorney to appear at any tirno and confess judgment 
therein does not render a note uncertain a.s to time of payment, such provision is 
illegal and no part of the note. See Tolman v. Jan.son, KXj Iowa 455 76 N W 

1. Stevens v. Blount, 7 Mass. 240 (1810); Gamer v. Hall & Farley, 114 Ala 
166, 21 So. 835. 

2. Goodloe v. Taylor, 3 Hawks, 458. 

3. Kiskadden v. Allen, 7 Colo. 206; Dobbins v. Oberman, 17 Nebr. 165. 

4. Miller v. Western College of Toledo, 177 III. 2S0, 52 N. E. 432, 42 L. R. A. 
797, 69 Am. St. Rep. 242; Mattison v. Marks, 31 Mich. 421; Jordan v. Tate, 19 
Ohio (N. S.), 586; First Nat. Hank v. Skeen, 29 Mo. App. 119. citing te.xt; Curtis 
v. Horn, 58 N. H. 504; Cunningham v. McDonald, 98 Tex. 316, S3 S. VV. 372, 
citing text; Hughes County v. Livingston, 43 C. C. A. 541, 104 Fed. 306; 
Lovenberg v. Henr>- (Tex.), 140 S. W. 1079, reversing Henry v. Lovenberg, 
128 S. W. 675. Under a statute providing that: "No written promise to pay 
money shall be held not to be a promissory note, or not to be negotiable for the 
reason that the time of payment is uncertain, provided that the money is payable 
at all events and at some time that certainly come," it wa.s held to be un- 
necessary to decide whether a note containing the language: "The privilege being 
allowed the makers hereof to pay the whole or any portion of said principal sum 
at any time within said five years if they so desire" wa.s negotiable by the law 
merchant, as it was within the terms of the statute. Lowell Trust Co. v. Pratt, 
183 Mass. 379, 67 N. E. 363. In Strickland v. National Salt Co., 77 N. J. Eq! 
328, 76 Atl. 1048, it was held that a corporate certificate containing an agreement 
to pay to a party named, or to his ortler, a sum of money in several equal .semi- 
annual installments, but further stipulating that the maker may cause its liability 
to be discharged by paying the amount of all future installments to a trustee in 
trust to pay the same to the registered holder of the certificate, was not negotiable, 
as the paper did not on its face bear a promise to pay the amount named to the 
holder or owner abstjlutely and at all events. The same certificate was held ne- 
gotiable in National Salt Co. v. Ingraham, 143 Fed. 805, but the above point was 
not noticed; it was there held that the right to pay before maturity did not affect 


not due before. True, the maker may pay sooner if he shall choose, 
but this option if exercised would be a payment in advance of the 
legal liability to pay, and nothing more. Notes like this are common 
in commercial transactions, and we are not aware that their nego- 
tiability is ever questioned in business dealings. It ought not to be 
questioned for the sake of any distinction that does not rest upon 
sound reason." •'' 

§ 44. Other cases have arisen illustrative of these views. — A 
note payaljle on demand after date, "when convenient," has been 
held payable absolutely in a reasonable time ; ^ and so a note payable 
"as soon as I can." ^ So a note payable in six months, "or as soon as 
I can with due diligence make the money out of said patent right;" * 
a note payable in nine months, "or as A.'s horse earns the money in 
the cavalry service;" ^ a note payable twelve months after date, "or 
sooner if made out of a certain sale," ^° have been each held valid, 
negotiable notes, payable absolutely at the termination of the time 
expressed, and earlier, provided the alternative event transpired. A 
note payable "from the avails of logs l)ought of M. M., when there is 
a sale made;" '^ or "when I sell my place where I now live," have 
been held payable absolutely after a reasonable time.^^ 

6. Mattison v. Marks, 31 Mich. 421 (1875); Hclmer v. Krolick, 36 Mich. 373 
(1877). See post, § 46. To same effect, Smith v. Ellis, 29 Me. 422, note payable 
as soon and as fast as the money could be collected; and, if not collected, in four 
years. But a note promising to pay a stated sum with interest "on or before two 
years from date," and providing that if it be paid within one j'car no interest 
should be paid, has been held nonnegotiable, because lacking certainty in time 
and amount. Story v. Lamb, 52 Mich. 525; Charlton v. Reed, 61 Iowa, 166, 47 
Am. Rep. 809, citing the text; Fogg v. School District, 75 Mo. App. 159; Pagal 
V. Nickel, 107 Wis. 471, 83 N. W. 767. 

6. Works V. Hershey, 35 Iowa, 340; Lewis v. Tipton, 10 Ohio (N. S.), 88. See 
post, § 88. 

7. Benton v. Benton, 78 Kan. 366, 97 Pac. 378, 130 Am. St. Rep. 376; Kincaid 
V. Higgins, 1 Bibb, 396. 

8. Palmer v. Hummer, 10 Kan. 464. Contra, Hubbard v. Mosely, 11 Gray, 170. 

9. Gardner v. Barger, 4 Heisk. 669. 

10. Ernst v. Steckman, 74 Pa. St. 13. To same effect, see Cidne v. Chidester, 
85 111. 523; Walker v. Woollen, 54 Ind. 164; Woollen v. Ulrich, 64 Ind. 120; Noll v. 
Smith, 64 Ind. 511; Charlton v. Reed, 61 Iowa, 166. A promise to pay a certain 
sum "on or before the completion of a certain contract," is not a contingent but 
an absolute promise, and the completion of the contract is referred to merely as 
fixing the time. Crocker-Woolworth Nat. Bank v. Carle, 133 Cal. 409, 65 Pac. 
951, citing text. 

11. Sears v. Wright, 24 Me. 278. See Fiske v. Pratt, 154 Mass. 367, 28 N. E. 282. 

12. Crooker v. Hohnes, 65 Me. 195. 


§ 45. So, where the note was to pay "as soon as reaUzed," to which 
was added, "to be paid in the course of the season now coming," 
Shaw, C. J., said the undertaking to pay was absolute, and that 
"whatever time may be understood by the 'coming season,' whether 
harvest-time or the coming year, it must come by mere hxpse of time, 
and that must be the ultimate limit of the time of payment." ^^ 
So, where the certificate is payable "on the return of this certificate," 
it is negotiable, because that merely requires, as in the case of any 
note, the return of the evidence of the debt: ^^ but if there be added, 
"and the return of my guaranty of a certain note," it would engraft 
a collateral condition which would defeat the negotiability of the 
instrument. ^^ 

The American decisions quoted seem to us salutary and correct. 
It has been held by the United States Supreme Court that a note 
payable "as soon as the crop can be sold, or the money raised from 
any other source," is not a promissory note.^^ 

§ 45a. In Massachusetts, it is considered essential to the nego- 
tiability of the note that it be payable at a definite time, or at a time 
that can be made definite at the election of the holder. And accord- 
ingly that an instrument given with a mortgage, promising to pay a 
certain sum in a year or a half from date, "or sooner, at the option of 
the mortgagor, with interest at a certain rate during the term of the 
mortgage," was not a negotiable note.'^ And this view has been 
approved in Missouri, where corporate bonds provided that "the 
company reserve the right to pay the same at any time by adding to 
the principal a sum equal to twenty per cent, thereof." '^ This latter 
decision seems clearly right, as the amount payable was not certain. 
But if a certain, or reasonably definite, time be fixed when the liability 

13. Cota V. Buck, 7 Mctc. (Mass.) 588. 

14. See §§ 47, 1703, 1707. 

15. Smilie v. Stevens, 39 Vt. 31G; Blowl v. Northrup, 1 Kan. 29; Van Zandt 
V. Hopkins, lol III. 24S, citing text, 37 N. E. 845. 

16. Nunez v. Dautel, 19 Wall. .560. 

17. Stults V. Silva, 119 Mas-s. 137; Way v. Smith, 111 Mass. 523; Mahoney v. 
Fitzpatrick, 133 Ma-ss. 151. On the other hand it has been held that "A promis- 
sory note payable when payor or payee mutually agree is to be construed as 
meaning that it is payable on demand when and after the payor ought reasonably 
to have agreed." Page v. Cook, 164 Mass. 166, 41 N. E. 115, 49 Am. St. Rep. 
410. See also Powers v. Manning, 154 370, 21 N. E. 290. 

18. Chouteau v. Allen, 70 Mo. 3.39; Brown v. Vossen, 112 Mo. App. 676, 87 
S. W. 577 and Bank v. Booze, 75 Mo. App. 189, citing text. 


to pay occurs, thus marking the hmit of the currency of the note and 
the period of its maturity, the fact that it may be taken up in advance 
ought not to imi)air its character as a negotial)Ie note, and we liave 
already given what seems to us the better opinion, as expressed by 
Judge Cooley, in reference to instruments so payable. '^ 

§46. If i)ayable when, or so many days after, "A. shall come of 
age," ^ the instrument would not be a bill or note, as A. might die a 
minor, and the fact that he actually attains majority does not alter 
it; but if the time when A. will come of age is specified, it will be good, 
as it will be taken to be payable absolutely when the time arrives.^' 
If jiayable at, or within a certain time after, a man's death, it is suffi- 
cient, because the event must occur.'-- And the words after the 

19. FoRg V. School District, 75 Mo. App. l.'iO; ante, § 43; Coulter v. Clark, 2 
Ind. App. 512, 28 N. E. 723. 

20. Rice V. Rice, 43 App. Div. 458, 60 N. Y. Supp. 97, citing text; Kelley v. 
Homniingwiiy, 13 111. 004. 

21. Goss V. Nelson, 1 Burr. 226. 

22. Cooke V. Colehan, 2 Stra. 1217; Colehan v. Cooke, Welles, 393; RofTey v. 
Groonwell, 10 Ad. it El. 222; Crider v. Shelby, 95 Fed. 212; Conn. v. Thornton, 
46 Ala. 587; Simon v. Jones' Estate (Ark.), 138 S. W. 98(); Beatty v. Western 
College, 179 111. 281, 52 N. E. 432, 69 Am. St. Rep. 242; Price v. Jones, 105 Ind. 
544, citing the te.xt; Mortee v. Edwards, 20 La. Ann. 236; Harper v. Davis, 115 
Md. 349, 80 Atl. 1012; Hegeman v. Moon, 131 N. Y. 462, 30 N. E. 487; Cam- 
Wright V. Gray, 127 N. Y. 93, 27 N. E. 835, 24 Am. St. Rep. 424; Chitty, Jr., on 
Bills, 301; 1 Ames on Bills and Notes, 83. The fact that a note was made pay- 
able after the death would not of itself defeat recovery. Harper v. Davis, 115 
Md. 349, 80 Atl. 1012. An instrument directing the maker's executor to pay to 
the order of a certain person a certain sum, and adding the words: "It being 
for work in house and for manual labor on my farm," shows mdehilum in prcvsenti, 
the time of payment of which wjis to be deferred until after the death of the maker. 
Junkins v. SuUivan, 110 Md. 539, 73 Atl. 264. A note payable in "twelve months 
after I shall become the legal owner of one hundred and fifteen acres of land con- 
veyed to me by my father, H. V. Davis, reserving to him, H. V. Davis, a life es- 
tate in said land," is not open to the objection that it is payable upon a contin- 
gency. McClenathan v. Davis, 243 111. 87, 90 N. E. 265, 27 L. R. A. (N. S.) 
1017. In Banker v. Coons, 40 App. Div. 572, 58 N. Y. Supp. 47, the note read: 
"After the death of Ehzabeth Avery Horton, for value received, I promise there 
shall be paid by my administrators or executors to Luella Banker, if living, if not, 
to her heirs, if any, if none, to my nearest kin, three thousand dollars with in- 
terest." The court commenting upon the note, said: "It is not necessary to 
characterize it as a nonnegotiable note; it is simply necessary to observe that it 
is a valid contract to pay upon consideration a fixed sum to the plaintiff, if she 
should be alive to receive it at the due day thereof." A curious case arose in Scot- 
land, in which it appears that a party accepted a bill payable at a certain time 
after his decease. He survived the acceptance thirty years. The court regarded 


promise "to be allowed at ray decease" would mean to he paid out of 
the maker's estate, and the paper would be a good negotiable note.-^ 
And a promise to pay "on demand, after my decease, $850," signed 
by the promisor, is a good note, negotiable as any other, and binding 
on the promisor's estate at his death.-"* So a note payable "one day 
after date or at my death," -'" and if the day of payment must come 
at the same time, it has been said that the distance is immaterial.-® 
The English courts have gone so far as to hold that if payable at a 
certain time after a government ship is paid off, it would be good, be- 
cause government is sure to pay; -^ but tliis decision has been justly 
criticised and distrasted.^ 

An agreement to pay ninety days after the happening of two 
events, one of which may never happen, is not negotiable.^ A note 
payable "on or l)y" a certain day is payable on that day;^ and a 
note payable "by" a certain day may be declared on as payaijle on 

the matter a.s 8o anomalouH as not to be subject of a bill of exchanRe, and sus- 
taincHJ objections to the bill. Stewart v. KuUarton, M(jrri.s<jn'H Dictionary <jf 
Decisions, 1408. 

23. Martin v. Stone, 67 N. H. 367, 29 Atl. 845. 

24. liristol V. Wanier, 1!) Conn. 7. 

25. C;()nn v. Thornton, 4r) Ala. TiHH; Hegeman v. Moon, 60 Hun, 412, .{0 X. E. 
487; Shaw v. Camp, 160 111. 425, 43 N. E. «K)8. 

26. Worth V. Cjise, 42 N. Y. 362; Garrigus, Adinr., v. The Home Frontier and 
Foreign Missionary Society, 3 Ind. App. 91, 2S N. E. 1009, 50 Am. St. Rep. 262, 
citing text. 

27. Andrews v. Franklin, 1 Stra. 24; Evans v. Underwoo<l, 1 Wils. 262. 

28. 1 I'arsons on Notes and liills, 40; Edwards on Hills, 142. SccminKlj' in 
8Ui)|)ort of the proposition statini is the ejusc of Powers v. Manning, I.'j4 Mass. 
370, 28 N. E. 290. Held, an action may be brought upon a promi.s.sory note which 
by its terms is payable " when the United States pays judgments " under sections 5 
and 8 of United States Statutes of June 5, 1882, upon the "Alabama claims in 
the so-called class 2," if the United States has in the main paid all judg- 
ments of the first class in full and over 35 per cent, of the greater part of those 
of the second class and has substantially exhausted the fund. In Jo.seph v. 
Carton, 13 N. M. 202, Si Pac. 439, 1 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1120, citing the text, it was 
held that a note containing a prf) to pay upon the confirmation by Congress of 
a certain land grant is not a negotiable instrument, since it was not certainly and 
at all events payable; it not being morally certain that the grant would ever be 
confirmed by Congress, the court sajnng further that the fact that the grant may, 
as a matter of fact, have been confirmed many years after the making of the 
instrument, does not alter the rule, since the certainty of maturity must be of 
the date of the instrument, and cannot derive support from any subsequent event. 

29. Sackett v. Palmer, 25 Barb. 178; Specht v. Beindorf, 56 Nebr. 553, 76 
N. W. 10.59. 

30. Maasie v. Belford, 68 III. 290; anU, § 43. 


that day." ^^ A bill payable in New York, October 31st, or in Paris, 
December 31st, is unobjectionable.' 


§ 47. A promise to pay a certain sum for stock, "in whole or from 
time to time in part, as the same shall be required within thirty days 
after demanded, or upon notification of thirty days in any news- 
paper," would answer the conditions necessary to a negotiable 
promissory note.^' 

And so would a promise to pay a certain sum "in such manner 
and proportions, and at such time and place as A. shall require," 
being paya])le on demand; ^"^ but a like promise to pay at such times 
and in such articles as C. may need for support, would not, the 
medium of payment not being money.^^ A promise to pay a certain 
sum after six months' notice is a good note.^ A written instrument 
acknowledging receipt of a certain sum, and promising to pay it to a 
certain party, "on return of this receipt," has been held a perfect 
negotiable note in New York, and its return was regarded as not of 
the essence of the contract.^^ 

If the note be in part for a sum certain, and part upon a contin- 
gency, it will not be negotiable."''* 

Under Negotiable Instrument statute. — Under the statutory defini- 
tion that, to be negotiable, an instrument must be payable on demand, 
or at a fixed or determinable" future time,^^ it has been held that an 

31. Preston v. Dunn, 25 Ala. 507. 

32. Henschel v. Mahlen, 3 Den. 428. 

33. Protection Ins. Co. v. Hill, 31 Conn. 534. See Stillwoll v. Craig, 58 Mo. 
24, where note payable in installments not to exceed 10 per cent, on each share, 
at thirty days' notice of call from board of directors, was held negotiable. 

34. Goshen v. Turpin, 9 Johns. 217 {semble)', Washington County Mutual 
Ins. Co. V. Miller, 26 Vt. 77. 

35. Corbett v. Steinmetz, 15 Wis. 170. 

36. Walker v. Roberts, Car. & M. 590; Gaytes v. Hibbard, 5 Biss. 99 (semble); 
Dutchess County v. Davis, 14 Johns. 238 (semble). 

37. Frank v. Wessels, 64 N. Y. 158, Church, C. J., saying of the paper: "It 
contains an express promise to pay Feist or order a specified sum of money upon 
demand, with interest. These are the statutory elements of such a (negotiable 
promissory) note." 1 Rev. Stat. 721, § 7. "The words, 'on the return of this 
receipt,' do not make it payable upon a contingency, or constitute a condition 
precedent to any payment. * * * This restriction would be implied, if not 
expressed; it is implied in every promissory note; and there is also an imphed ex- 
ception on account of mistake or accident. * * * This clause is not of the 
essence of the contract." See ante, § 45. 

38. Palmer v. Word, 6 Gray. 34a 

39. Appendix, sec. 1 (3) ; see also sees. 4, 5. A draft, containing the words "upon 


order that a certain sum is to be due Oct. 1st means that the sum 
stated is to be paiil Oct. 1st and, so construed, is an unconditional 
order to pay a sum certain in money, at a fixed future time, to the 
payee or order, and is a bill of exchange, within the meaning of the 
statute.'*® When the time of payment depends upon the will of the 
holder and is uncertain, the instrument is not negotiable, as when 
it contains a provision retaining title to the property for the purchase 
of which the note was given, and further provides that the payee has 
full power to declare the note due and take possession of the property 
when he deems the debt insecure even before the maturity of the 
note.^^ Where, however, the contingency as to time of payment de- 
pends upon some act done or omitted to be done by the maker, or 
upon the occurrence of some event indicated in the note, and not 
upon the act of the payee or holder, this does not render the instru- 
ment nonnegotiable.'*^ When an option to extend the time of pay- 

acccptancc," is payable only on a continKcncy or condition, and thorefore is not 
negotiable. Berenson v. London & Lancaahire Fire Ins. Co., 201 Mass. 172, 
87 N. E. 687. And so as to a note "Payed when we get it from the brewery after 
date." Wray v. Miller, 120 N. Y. S. 787. 

40. Torpey v. Tebo, 1S4 Mass. 307, 08 N. E. 223. 

41. Ki[)ton V. Studcbukcr Bros. Co., 14 Idaho, r).'')2, 94 Pac. 1030, 125 Am. St. 
Rop. 18.5 (stH* appendix, m^c. 1 |51). Stn- further, j)()sl, under § (U. A note 
whieh eontain.s a recital that collateral .security wa.s attached of a certain value, 
and a stipulation that "if, in the judgment of the holder of this note, said col- 
lateral depreciates in value, the undersigned agrees to deliver, when demanded, 
additional security to the satisfaction of said holder; otherwise this note shall 
mature at once," is nonnegotiable lx?causc it contains a to do an act in 
addition to the payment of the money, and becau.s*! the date when it is to come 
due is uncertain. HoUiday State Bank v. Hoffman, 116 P. 239, 85 Kan. 71, 35 
L. R. A. (N. S.) 390. 

42. Joergenson v. Joergenson, 28 Wash. 477, 68 Pac. 913, 92 Am. St. Rep. 888, 
as to a note containing a provision that "if we sell or remove the timber that we 
have bought on Johan Joergenson 's homestead claim, before the expiration of said 
four years, then this note shall be paid at the time of such sale or removal of 
said timber." In Iowa Nat. Bank v. Carter, 144 Iowa, 715, 123 N. W. 237, it 
was held that notes are nonnegotiable where they and a chattel mortgage were 
executtni at the same time, and were i)art of the same transaction, and the mort- 
gage provides that if the mortgagor disp<jse of or attempt to dispose of or remove 
the whole or any part of the goo<ls, then the whole amount not paid shall be im- 
mediately due and pa3able, and the notes provide that in case of default, the 
payee shall have the option to declare any and all other notes at once due and 
payable. Subsequently, in State Bank of Halstead v. Bilfltad (Iowa), 136 N. W. 
204, the court said that the above case should be quaUfied, as the statute, section 
4 (2) expressly makes notes payable on or before a certain time negotiable. .\nd 
in Mackintotth v. Gibba, 79 N. J. L. 40, 74 Atl. 708, it was held that by sec- 


ment can be exercised by the payee or holder only upon failure to pay 
at maturity the instrument is negotiable/' but if a clause in a note is 
to be construed as giving the maker and indorser the right before 
maturity to extend the time of payment, the note is not negotiable.''"* 

tion 2, a note is negotiable notwithstanding tiie fact that it contained provisions 
for payment with interest payable semiannually, and a provision that, upon de- 
fault, the whole sum should become immediately due and i)ayable at the option 
of the holder. In Thorpe v. Minderman, 123 Wis. 149, 101 N. W. 417, 03 L. R. A. 
146, 107 Am. St. Rep. 1003, it was held that an agreement in a note that the 
whole principal of the note shall be due at the mortgagee's option in case of a 
failure to pay interest or perform any of the conditions of the mortgage, does not 
nmder the note nonnegotiable. The point was decided on the clause of the 
Wisconsin statute, sec. 4, .subd. 4: "At a fixed period after the date or sight, though 
payable before then on a contingency;" this clause does not appear in the other 
statutes. Citing Thorpe v. Minderman, supra, it was held in Taylor v. American 
Nat. Bank of Pensacola (Fla.), 57 So. 678, that a promissory note in negotiable 
form, with interest payable quarter-annually, is negotiable, though accompanied 
by an ordinary real estate mortgage, which provides that, upon default in the 
payment of any installment of interest, which interest is payable quarter-annually, 
the whole amount of such note shall tluTcby become due and payable. 

43. Stitzel V. Miller, 95 N. E. ,53, 250 111. 72, 34 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1004, as to a 
provision in a note, "in case said not(! is not paid at maturity, that it is at the 
option of the holder hereof to extend, as he deems proper, the payment of the 
above note." See also State Bank of Halstad v. Bilstad (Iowa), 136 N. W. 204, 
as to a note due at a certain time, but containing a stipulation that on a certain 
contingency the note shall be extended one year, wherein the court said: "These 
provisions clearly provide for flexibility in fixing the time of payment, provided 
only that there shall certainly come a time when the note is, by its terms, due. 
In other words, they recognize the right of the parties to an instrument to contract 
for their mutual benefit, and say, in etTect, that, if the contract made is certainly 
to be performed at some definite time in the future, its negotiability is not de- 
stroyed. A determinable future time, as used in the second of the section, 
can mean nothing else than a time that can be certainly determined after the exe- 
cution of the note. The contingency which will render a note nonnegotiable 
under the last clause of the section clearly means an event which may or may not 

44. Rosville State Bank v. Heslet, 84 Kan. 315, 113 Pac. 1052, as to a pro- 
vision: "The makers and indorsers of this note hereby severally waive present- 
ment for payment, notice of payment, protest and notice of protest, and all 
exemptions that may be allowed by law, and valuation and appraisement laws 
waived, and each signer and indorser makes the other an agent to extend the time 
of this note." See also Union Stockyards Nat. Bank v. Bolan, 14 Idaho, 87, 93 
Pac. 508. But in First Nat. Bank v. Buttery (N. D.), 116 N. W. 341, 16 L. R. A. 
(N. S.) 878, it was held that the negotiable quality of a promissory note is not 
destroyed by a provision therein, that the makers and indorsers thereof severally 
waive presentment of payment and notice of protest, and consent that the time 
of payment may be extended without notice, when by its terms it is made payable 
on or before a day named, the court saying: "This phrase does not express an 


§ 48. Notes payable in installments. — If a promissory note be 
made payable by installments, with a condition that if default be 
made in the payment of the first installment by the maker, the whole 
shall be immediately payable, it is negotiable within the statute of 
Anne. It is not payable upon a contingency, or at a time uncertain, 
but is likened to a bill payable at a certain time after sight; and the 
period or periods when it shall be due is dependent on the act of the 
maker himself. ''" In Michigan, where the promise was to pay " $1,500, 
to be paid 20 per cent a month from the 1st of July, 1871," toward 
building a certain road, the note was held negotiable.'^ And in 
Illinois, where a note is not payable to a corporation or order, "in 
such installments, and at such times as the directors of said company 
may from time to time require," the like decision was rendered, 
Sheldon, J., saying: "It wa,s in effect payable on demand, or in install- 
ments on demand." ^^ An option expressed in a note that the holder 
may treat it as due immediately upon default in payment of an in- 
stallment of interest must be exercised in a reasonable time, and delay 
of seven months, as has been held, would be unreasonable and would 
discharge an indorser.^^ Such a provision has also been held not to 
impair the negotiability of the instrument. ^^ 

agreement to extend time, but leaves the matter of extension optional with the 
holder, and not obligator>' upon him, and the note on its face fixes the time when 
it becomes due. In this respect it must be distinguished from a j)rovision to the 
effect that the time of payment shall be extended indefinitely, in which ciiso the 
uncertainty of the time renders the instrument nonnegotiable." 

45. Carlon v. Kenealy, 12 M. & W. 139; Martin v. Jesse French Piano, etc., 
Co., 151 Ala. 2S9, 44 So. 112; Strickland v. National Salt Co., 77 N. J. Eq. 328, 
76 Atl. 1048; Mackintosh v. Gibbs, 81 X. J. L. 577, 80 Atl. 554, affirming judgment 
79 N. J. L. 40, 74 Atl. 708; Clark v. Skeen, 61 Kan. 526, citing text. See Miller 
V. Biddle, 13 L. T. R. 334 (1865), Pollock, C. B., questioning Carlon v. Kenealy. 

46. Wright v. Irwin, 33 Mich. 32. 

47. White V. Smith, 77 111. 351 (1875). 

48. Crossmore v. Page, 73 Cal. 213. In Wisconsin, however, it is held that a 
note payable in installments is rendered nonnegotiable by a subjoined agreement 
that in case of default in any payment, or an attempt to di-spose of, or remove 
the chattel for the price of which the note is given, the holder may declare the 
whole amount due. Kimball County v. Mellon, 80 Wis. 133, 48 N. W. 1100. 

49. Roberts v. Snow, 43 N. W. 241. Where a printed clause in a note, read: 
"Principal and interest payable in gold coin of the United States," and con- 
tinued in writing "in sums of twenty-five dollars or more monthly, together with 
interest monthly," the provision for the paj'ment of twenty-five dollars or more 
was merely an option given to the makers whereby they were permitted, in ad- 
vance of the maturity of the note, to make partial payments on account of the 
principal, and did not limit their obligation to pay the interest monthly, nor did 


§ 49. Cases arising out of Confederate War. — During the war 
between the United States and the Confederate States, obligations 
w(>re frequently given, payable when, or a certain time after, peace 
should be declared. Where a note was expressed to be payable "six 
months after peace is declared between the United States and the 
Confederate States of America," it was held actionable six months 
after peace ensued.^ And the like ruling prevailed <u> to a note 
payable "thirty days after peace between the C. S. and the U. S.," ^^ 
and as to a note payable "one day after the treaty of peace." ^- But 
in West Virginia, where a bond was payable "six months after the 
ratification of peace between the U. S. and C. S.," it seems to have 
been regarded as a wager upon the success of the Confederacy; but 
the case went off on a formal point. ^■'' In North Carolina this view has 
been adopted and applictl,^'* and certainly is not without force. Only 
the United States Senate can ratify a peace, and a peace ratified 
between two countries implies the independence of each. And 
further, it may be said that until the condition precedent is fulfilled, 
no liability accrues. But upon the princii)le 'Wes magis valeal, qunm 
pcrcat," we think the better view is that "six months after peace" 
would fulfill the meaning of the terms as they were used in the coun- 
try, though they are the very words of Confederate treasury notes; 
and it has been so decided in a number of cases, the courts construing 
the language according to its poi)ular import, and the probable inti'U- 
tion of the parties, rather than in its strict technical sense.^^ 

§ 50. Instruments payable out of a particular fund not negotiable. 
— In accordance with these principles the character of the instrument 
as a bill or note is destroyed if it be made payable expressly or by 

it destroy or modify the holder's right to declare the entire sum due when there 
should be a default in the payment of interest. Kinsel v. Ballou, 151 Cal. 754, 
91 Pac. 620. 

50. Brewster v. Williams, 2 S. C. 455 (1871). 

51. Mortee v. Edwards, 20 La. Ann. 236 (1868). 

52. Gaines v. Dorsett, 18 La. Ann. 563 (1866). 

53. Harris v. Lewis, 5 W. Va. (Hagans) 576 (1872). 

54. McNinch v. Ramsey, 66 N. C. 229 (1872). 

55. Knight v. McReynolds, 37 Tex. 204; Atcheson v. Scott, 51 Tex. 213 (over- 
ruling Thompson v. Houston, 31 Tex. 610). A case arose in the Supreme Court 
of Appeals of Virginia, involving this question (Phelps v. Moomaw), but it was 
compromised and never came to trial. The inferior court ruled as in Texas. 
Brewster v. WiUiams, 2 S. C. 455; Mortee v. Edwards, 20 La. Ann. 236; Gaines 
V. Dorsett, 18 La. Ann. 563; Nelson v. Manning, 53 Ala. 549. 


implication out of a particular fund; for its payment becomes then 
conditioned on the sufficiency of that fund, which may prove inade- 
quate.^ Thus the insertion, in an order of A. upon B. to pay a certain 
sum, of the words "on account of brick work done on a certain build- 
ing," " or "out of any money in his hands belonging to me," ^ or to 
"charge the same to the account of R. M. I. 100 bales of cotton," ^^ 
have been held to imply contingencies, and nonnegotiable. So, also, 
where the paper was expressed as payable "for value received in 
stock, ale, brewing vessels, etc., this being intended to stand against 
the undersigned tus a set-off for the sum left me in my father's will 
above my sister's share." ^ and where the words were added, "out 
of rents," ^' "out of avails, when received, on sale of logs," ^'^ "out of 
my growing suljstance," " "out of the net proceeds of certain ore," ^* 
or "out of a certain claim," *^ "out of a certain payment when 
made," <^ or "the demand I have against the estate of A.," ^ or "out 

66. Woodall v. P«H)p!f8' Nat. Bank, 153 Ala. 7.56, 45 So. 194; Miller v. Poage, 
50 Iowa, 9(i; White v. CiLshinR, H-S Me. 342, 34 Atl. H>4, 51 Am. St. Rep. 402; 
VViulIinKton v. Covert, 51 Misw. Cuil; S<jnnetliicl v. Skinner, 07 Tex. 455. Ah recog- 
nizinK a tU-stinction where the in.stnirnent is nirnply (•h:ir>;('al)le to a particular 
aeeount, see, i), §51, and Kirst Nat. Bank of lIutchinHon v. Lightner, 
74 Kan. 736, 88 Pac. 59, 8 L. H. A. (N. S.) 231, 118 Am. St. Rep. 353, citing 

67. Pitman v. Crawfonl, 3 Gratt. 127; Rlwanls on Billrt, 143. 

68. Averett's .\(inir. v. Ii<x)ker, 15 (Jratt. 105, Lee, J.: "Here, the sum to 
be paid is not payable al)solutely and at all events. It is payable out of a par- 
ticular fund, to wit, the moneys, if any, in the hands of the drawe<', belonging 
to the drawer. The draft, theri'fore, cannot Ix- tn-ati^l jw a bill (jf exchange, nor 
can a recover>' be had u|K)n it jus such." Jcnney v. Hearle, 2 I>1. Riiym. 13(il. 
But see Corlx'tt v. Chirk, 45 Wis. 4().{, where the words "and take the same out 
of our .shan- of the grain," were iulde<l to the request by the drawee to pay; and 
the instrument was held a valid bill. 

69. Ilannay v. Guaranty Trust Co. of New York, 187 Fed. 686. 

60. Clarke v. Perceval, 2 B. & Ad. 000. 

61. 1 Parsons on Notes and Bills, 43. And see Thompson v. Wheatland Mer- 
cantile Co., 10 Wyo. HO, m Pac. .595, h«)lding that an in.strumcnt which is only a 
promise to pay "out of the wjuity in the al>ove describe*] lan<l, or out of the crop 
raised on the siiid land," which is contingent u[xjn the sufficiency of the fund, 
is not a negotiable bill or note, and citing text. 

62. Kelly v. Bron.son, 26 Minn. 359. 

63. Joaselyn v. Lacier, 10 Mod. 294. 

64. Wonlen v. Dodge, 4 Den. 1.59. 

66. RichanLson v. Carpenter, 40 N. Y. 661; Corbett v. State, 24 Ga. 287; 
Iloagland v. Erck, 11 Nebr. .>S0. 

66. Haydock v. Lynch, 2 IaI. Raym. 1563 

67. West V. Forman, 21 Ala. 400. 


of my part of the estate of A.," ''"^ or " ijeing the amount that came to 
you from B. to me," ^^ or "out of the proceeds of A.'s bond," ™ or 
"and deduct the same from my share of the profits of the partner- 
ship," ^^ or "and charge the same to our account for labor and mate- 
rials, performed and furnished," ^^ or "on account of work done as 
per contract," ^^ or "out of amount due me on contract." "' But a 
written promise to pay, one day after the promisor's death, $2,(X){) 
for services rendered, "to be paid out of my estate," would be a 
good note, because payable generally and not out of a particular 

§ 50a. Certificates of receivers of courts are not regarded as 

negotiable, although framed with the negotiable words usual in 
promissory not(>s, for the reason, lus a,ssigned in Illinois, that "whether 
in any event they are payable in full depends on the question whether 
th(> fund under the control of the court is sufficient for that purpose." "' 
Such certificates have not the quality of negotiable instruments not- 

68. Mills V. Kuykendale, 2 Blackf. 47. 

69. Harriman v. Sanborn, 43 N. II. 128. 

70. Kenny v. Hinds, 44 How. Pr. 7. 

71. Mungor v. Shannon, Gl N. Y. 2r)8, Dwipht, C: "The present order, it 
should be observed, is payable out of an uncertain fund, from profits, and, of 
course, none may be realized. This fact deprives it of an element essential in a 
bill of exchange, which is that it be payable alisolutely, and not upon a con- 
tingency. * * * 1 think that the true construction of the present order is, 
that it wtxs an equitable assignment of a certain amount of the profits of the busi- 
ness of L. A. Gulick. Cowpcrthwaite v. Sheffield, 3 N. Y. 243, is not opposed 
to this view, since, in that Ciuse, there was nothing on the face of the bills to in- 
dicate that they were drawn on a specific fund, but they were in the ordinary 
forms of bills of exchange. The same remark is to be applied to Harris v. Clark, 
3 N. Y. 93." 

72. Brill V. Tuttle, 81 N. Y. 457. (But query, see § 51.) The language was 
regarded as ambiguous, and attendant circumstances were considered. 

73. Ehrichs v. De Mill, 75 N. Y. 370, Hand, J.: "It would seem clear that an 
order for payment, as per contract, confined the direction for payment to the fund 
becoming due by contract." Gerow v. Riffe,.29 W. Va. 462; American Boiler Co. 
V. Fontham, 34 App. Div. 294, 55 N. Y. Supp. 923. 

74. Hoagland v. Erck, 11 Nebr. 580; Stebbins v. Union Pac. R. Co., 2 Wyo. 
Ter. 78. 

75. Price v. Jones, 105 Ind. 543. 

76. Turner v. P. & S. R. Co., 95 111. 134; Union Trust Co. v. Chicago, etc., 
R. Co., 7 Fed. 513; Staunton v. Ala. & C. R. Co., 31 Fed. 587; McCurdy v. Bowes, 
88 Ind. 583. The principle stated in the text has been appHed in Indiana to 
gravel-road bonds. See Kirsch v. Braum, 153 Ind. 247, 53 N. E. 1082. 


withstanding the terms of the order of the court authorizing the re- 
ceiver to issue a negotiable receiver's certificate.^^ 

§ 51. Indications as to mode of reimbursement. — The statement 
as to a particular fund in a bill however will not vitiate it if inserted 
merely as an indication to the drawee how to reimburse himself, or 
to show to what account it should be charged."'^ Thus, where the bill 
said, "and charge the sum against whatever amount may be due for 
my share of fish," it wa^j held a mere indication of the means of reim- 
bursement, and the pa>Tnent not limited to the proceeds of the fish,"^ 
and so as to a sight draft to the order of a certain person, for a stated 
amount, "and charge to account of one bale of cotton, bill of lading 
attached." ^ So, where A. B. directed the defendant in writing to 
pay the plaintiff or order £9 10s., "as my quarterly half-pay, to be 
due from 24th of June to 27th of September next, by advance," the 
court held it a gootl bill, saying, "The mention of the half-pay is only 
by way of direction how he shall reimburse himself, but the money 
is still to be advanced on the credit of the person." *^ So it was held 
where the expression used was "pay A. L., or order, — it will Ije in full 
of a certain judgment."®- Where the words u.sed were, "which I 
agree to pay out of my next quarter's mail pay," the Supreme Court 
of Maine said: "The promise is both absolute, and to pay in money," 
and it was deemed evident that the payment was not to be confined 
to the particular fund, but was to be made whether it sufficed or not. 
Hence the note w;us held negotiable.**' 

Under Negotiable hifitrument statute. — Under the statutory defini- 
tion of a negotiable instrument and of an unconditional promise to 
pay,*^ an order or promise to pay out of a particular fund is not un- 

77. Bernard v. Union Trust Co., l.TO Fvd. G20, 16 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1118. 

78. Corbett v. Clark, 4.5 Wis. 307; Etlwards on Bill.s, 144. See §§41, 797; 
Whitney v. Eliot Nat. Bank, 1.37 .3.')!. The wonts in an order "on account 
of contract" do not moan "out of the procee<l.s of contract," but amount to no 
more than an indication of the fund fmrn which the drawee i.s to reimburse him- 
self. First Nat. Bank of Hutchinson v. Light ner, 74 Kan. 730, 88 Pac. 59, 8 
L. R. A. (N. S.) 231, lis Am. St. Rep. 3r)3, citing text. 

79. Reilman v. Adams, 51 Me. 433. 

80. Bank of Guntersville v. Jones Cotton Co., 1.56 Ala. 525, 46 So. 971. 

81. Macleod v. Snee, 2 Stra. 762, 2 Ld. Raym. 1481; Nichols v. Ruggles, 76 
Me. 27. 

82. Ellett V. Britton, G Tex. 229. 

83. Nichol.s V. Ruggles, 76 Me. 27. 

84. .\p[)endix, sees. 1, 3. 



conditional and not negotiable.^^ The instrument is negotiable, how- 
ever, under the statute as under the law merchant, when it does not 
limit payment out of a particular fund but is made to the general 
credit of the maker or drawer and indicates the fund or source from 
which it may be paid.^^ 

§ 51a. Recitals of collateral matters or words of consideration.— 
The fact that a writing in the form of a promissory note forms part of 
an instrument containing other conditions and stipulations does not 
destroy its character as a negotiable promissory note when the whole 
instrument indicates that the note was to be considered between the 
parties as an absolute payment to the payee of the amount stated."*^ 
The negotiability of the instrument is not impaired by recitals or 
statements upon its face, which merely state the consideration upon 
which it was made, and impose no other liability upon any party 
thereto than that for the payment of the sum of money therein ex- 
pressed,^ as that it was "given in consideration of a certain patent 

85. National Sav. Bank v. Cable, 73 Conn. 568, 48 Atl. 428, as to an order 
to pay a certain sum "or what may be due on my deposit book;" Fulton v. 
Varney, 102 N. Y. S. 608, 117 App. Div. 572, a.s to an instrument f)roviding: 
"this amount to be paid out of our profits" on a certain job. A written promise 
to pay the amount named from the final payment due to the drawer under a 
building contract in process of performance, should not be treated aa an inland 
bill of exchange (see appendix, sees. 126, 129). Buttrick Lumber Co. v. Collins, 
202 M;uss. 41:5, 89 N. E. 138. 

86. Hibbs v. Brown, 190 N. Y. 107, 82 N. E. 1108; Waddell v. Hanover Na- 
tional Bank, 97 N. Y. S. 305, 48 Misc. 578, aa to a draft for a certain sum "4 
hundred cases A. R. L. No. 3.362— via A. R. L. B. L. direct." This section is 
merely declaratory to the common law, and the insertion in a bill of exchange 
of the words "on account of" has not the same effect as the words "out of the 
proceeds of," and does not render the bill nonnegotiable. First Nat. Bank v. 
Lightner, 74 Kan. 736, 88 Pac. 59, 8 L. R. A. (N. S.) 231, 118 Am. St. 353. A 
provision in a note that "In case of the death of the insured before the note falls 
due, the above amount with interest shall be deducted from the amount of the 
policy," is clearly covered by section 3, and also is within the spirit of section 5, 
and the note is negotiable. Union Bank of Bridgwater v. Spies, 151 Iowa, 178, 
130 N. W. 928. A demand note otherwise negotiable is not rendered nonnegoti- 
able by a provision: "This note is given to take up the freight and rehauling of 
N. P. Car 43607 and proceeds from resale of said car shall apply on this note," 
as it was made on the general credit of the maker, and pointed to proceeds of a 
sale which might be applied to its payment. First Nat. Bank of Snohomish v. 
Sullivan, 66 Wash. 375, 119 P. 820. 

87. New Bank of Eau Claire v. Kleiner, 112 Wis. 287, 87 N. W. 1090. See 
'post, § 156. 

88. Siegel v. Chicago Tr. & Sav. Bank, 23 N. E. 417; Chase v. Behrman, 10 


right;" ^^ or "as part pay for a piano-forte," or for any other consider- 
ation,^ or "and the same will be credited in your joint note to me." ^^ 
The statement that collateral security has been given or deposited 
for the performance of the promise contained in the bill or note is a 
recital only, which does not affect its negotiability; ^^ and though the 
recital contain the terms of the deposit, that does not alter the case, 
for it renders neither the amount, the time of payment, the payee, 
nor the engagement to pay, uncertain,^^ 

Daly, 345; Clanin v. Esterly Machine Co., 118 Ind. 373; post, §§ 108, 150; Bresee 
V. Crumpton, 121 N. C. 122, 28 S. E. 351, citing text; Nat. German Am. Bank v. 
Lang, 2 N. Dak. 66, 49 N. W. 414; Boatty v. Wo.stem College, 177 111. 281, 52 
N. E. 432, 09 Am. St. Ilcpr. 242; Simmons v. Council, 5 Ga. App. 380, 03 S. E. 

89. Hrrcth v. Meyer, 33 Ind. 511. See post, §797. So a recital in the note 
showing that the con.siderution \v;us a sale to the maker of a soda fountain, and 
retaining title in the payee until the note is paid, does not impair its negotiability. 
Choate V. Stevens, 110 Mich. 28, 74 N. W. 289. 

90. Preston v. Whitney, 23 Mich. 200; Wright v. Irwin, 33 Mich. 32; Mott v. 
Havana Nat. Hank, 22 Hun, 3.')4; Newton Wagon Co. v. Dyers, 10 Nebr. 284; 
Collins V. Bnulbury, »)4 Me. 37; Kidgely Nat. Hank v. Patton, 109 111. 484; First 
Nat. Hank v. Badham, 80 S. C. 170, 68 S. E. 530, 138 Am. St. Rep. 1043. See 
§§41, 797. 

91. Adams v. Boyd, 33 Ark. .33. 

92. V. Charlton, 4 Ad. & El. 780; Fancourt v. Thome, 9 Q. B. 312; Ha-s- 
soullier V. Harkenck, 7 T. R. 733; P'armer v. First Nat. Bank, 89 Ark. 132, 115 
S. W. 1141, 131 Am. St. Rep. 79; Roberts v. Jacks, 31 Ark. .597; First Nat. Bank 
V. Mineral Farm Con.sol. Min. Co., 17 Colo. App. 452, 68 Pac. 981; Zollman v. 
Jack.s<jn Trust A Savings Bank, 23 111. 290, 87 N. E. 297; Duncan v. Louisville, 
13 385; Howry v. Epjiinger, 34 Mich. 2<); Littlefield v. Hodge, 6 Mich. 
320; Kelley v. Whitney, 45 Wis. 110. See jjost, § 156. A recital in an in.strument, 
in other respects like a promissory note, that it is secured by a lien or by a deposit 
of collaterals, does not destroy its negotiability, unless such recital qualifies the 
promise or makes it uncertain or conditional. Beckstrom v. Krone, 125 111. App. 
376. An instniment that "Si.x months and twenty-four days after date, I 
to pay to the order of J. G. Rathburn one thousand dollars, with interest from ma- 
turity. And to better secure the payment of the same, the attached certificate 
No. 184, for twenty shares of the stock of the Car. Sulph. Acid Mfg. Co., is here- 
with depo.sited as collateral without recourse," is both a promissory note and a 
pledge of collateral security, and the words "without recourse" refer to the pledge. 
Rathburn v. Jones, 47 S. C. 206, 25 S. E. 214. In ComLsh v. Woolverton, 32 Mont. 
456, 81 Pac. 4, 108 Am. St. Rep. 598, under a statute provading that several 
contracts relating to the same matters, between the same parties, and made as 
parts of substantially one transaction, are to be taken together (Civil Code, 
§ 2207), it was held that though a note should be negotiable so far as concerns the 
conditions expressed upon its face, its negotiable character must be determined 
by the provisions of the mortgage. 

93. Towne v. Rice, 122 Mass. 67; .Vrnold v. Rock River, etc., R. Co., 5 Duer, 


Under Negotiable Instrument statute.— Vnder the statutory defini- 
tion of a promissory note,^^ it has been held that an instrument recit- 
ing: "Having been cause of a money loss to my friend Gerardine H. 
Hickok, I have given her three thousand dollars. I hold this amount 
in trust for her, and one year after date or thereafter on demand I 
promise to pay to the order of Gerardine H. Hickok, her heirs or 
assigns, three thousand dollars with interest." contained every 
essential element to constitute a promissory note.^'^ And a note given 
for the premium on an insurance policy is not rendered nonnegotiable 
from the fact that it contains language from which it appears that the 
promise was an indebtedness for a balance remaining unpaid of the 
first annual premium upon a policy which had been actually deliv- 

§ 52. The rule seems to be that if the memorandum or collateral 
agreement impairs the essential characteristics of certainty necessary 
to negotiable paper, it destroys its negotiability, but otherwise not.^^ 
A promise to pay S. or order SI, 000, or upon surrender of "this note," 
to issue stock for the same, does not violate this rule, and is a good 
note, the option to receive the stock being entirely with the payee.^^ 
And the like view applies to a note payable in money, or in goods on 
demand, the election to take the goods or no resting with the payee.^^ 
So it was held in Wisconsin that a note, otherwise negotiable, was not 
therein affected by the fact that it contained a memorandum that, if 
the maker failed to pay it at maturity, the whole amount of the pre- 
mium on a policy of insurance, for which it was given, should be 

207; Heard v. Dubuque County Bank, 8 Nebr. 16. In Mott v. Havana Nat. 
Bank, 22 Hun, 354, the note was expressed on its face to be "in part payment for 
a portable engine, which engine shall be and remain the property of the owner 
of this note until the amount hereby secured is paid." Held negotiable. In Perry 
V. Bigelow, 128 Mass. 129, the note contained a memorandum authorizing the 
collateral to be sold. Held negotiable. See §§ 108, 110, 797. 

94. Appendix, sec. 184. 

95. Hickok v. Bunting, 73 N. Y. S. 967, 67 App. Div. 560. On a later ap- 
peal in the same case, Hickok v. Bunting, 86 N. Y. S. 1059, 92 App. Div. 167, 
it was further held that, in the absence of contrary evidence, the note showed 
prima facie a consideration, the court saying that the note did not show that the 
stated loss did not constitute a legal obligation. 

96. Equitable Trust Co. of New York v. Taylor, 131 N. Y. S. 475, 146 App. 
Div. 424; Equitable Trust Co. v. Newman, 131 N. Y. S. 1113, 146 App. Div. 953. 

97. Gilpin v. People's Bank, 45 Ind. App. 52, 90 N. E. 91, citing text. 

98. Hodges v. Shuler, 22 N. Y. 114. 

99. Hosstater v. Wilson, 36 Barb. 307. 


considered earned, and the policy void.^ And so, where, m a note, the 
obligation to pay is not limited or contingent, but is absolute and 
unequivocal, the character of the note as a negotiable instrument is 
not afifected by a recital therein that it was given for an amount due 
by the makers for goods furnished by the payee upon a reservation 
of title as upon a conditional sale.^ 

The negotiability of a promissory note payable to order is not re- 
strained by the circumstance of its being for the purchase of real 
property in Louisiana, and the notary before whom the contract of 
sale was executed writing upon it the words, ''ne varietur," according 
to the laws and usages of that State, and others governed by the civil 



§ 53. In the fourth place, the amount to be paid must be cer- 
tain.'' — Thcroforr, tlio iustruinciit is not I'fjrotiiiMe if it engages 

1. Kirk V. Dodge County Mutual In.s. Co., 39 Wis. 138. But. in that State, 
where the note contained a provision for the sale, before its maturity, of collat- 
eral securities delivered therewith, and the application of the proceeds to the 
payment of the note, the balance, if any, to become immediately due, it was 
held that the note wtus thereby rendered nonncgotiable. Continental Nat. Bank 
V. McGooch, 73 Wis. 335. 

2. First Nat. Bank v. Alexander, 161 Ala. .580, 50 So. 45; J. B. Pyron & Son 
V. Ruohs, 120 Ga. 1060, 48 S. E. 434; Howard v. Simpkin.s, 70 Ga. 323; Choate v. 
Stevens, 116 Mich. 28, 74 N. W. 289; Burnley v. Tufts, 66 Miss. 48; Heard v. 
Dubuque County Bank, 8 Nebr. 10. A conditif)n in a note which presents a case 
in which the title to RfKxls never passetl to the maker, as distinguished from a 
c:Lse of a complete^l .sale with a reservation of title by way of .security only, de- 
stroys the negotiability of the note. Worden Grocer Co. v. Blanding, 161 Mich. 
254, 126 N. W. 212. Compare Schmidt v. Pegg (Mich.), 137 N. W. 524, where 
the sale reserved title by way of security only, and was not a conditional sale, 
and the notes were given after delivery of the machine, and the notes were not 
rendered nonncgotiable. 

3. Fleckner v. Bank of U. S., 8 Wheat. 338. 

4. Parsons v. Jackson, 99 U. S. (9 Otto) 440; Gilpin v. People's Bank, 45 Ind. 
App. 52, 90 N. E. 91; Nicely et al. v. Winnebago Nat. Bank of Rockford, 111., 
18 Ind. App. .30, 47 N. E. 476, citing text; Smith v. Marland, 59 Iowa, 345; Gaar 
v. Louisville B. Co., 11 Bush, 180; Storj- v. Lamb, 52 Mich. 525; Roblee v. Union 
Stock Yards Nat. Bank, 69 Neb. 180, 95 N. W. 61; Farquhar v. Fidelity Ins. 
Co., 13 Phila. 473; Donald.son v. Grant, 15 Utah, 231, 49 Pac. 779. In.struments 
which include an order for certain goods at certain prices and also a i)art which 


to pay a certain sum "and all other sums which may be due," as 
the aggregate amount is not capable of definite ascertainment.^ So, 
if it be for a certain sum "and whatever sum you may collect of me 
for C. ; " ^ or " and taxes; " ^ or if it be for " the proceeds of a shipment 
of goods, value about £2,000, consigned by me to you;"* or "the 
demands of the sick club in part of interest;" ^ or "a certain sum, the 
same to go as a set-off;" '° or if it be expressed, "deducting all ad- 
vances and expenses;" ^^ or if it be for "$800 and such additional 
premium as may ])e due on policy No. 218,171;" ^- or if it be for a 
principal sum certain but unctTtain as to the amount of interest 
payable; '^ or if it provide that there shall be no interest if paid within 

is in the form of u promissory note for the amount of purchiiso prifc of the Koo<lfl, 
is not a negotiubk' promis8<jry note. Neyons v. IIoss;ick, 142 111. App. '.i'27. In 
Roblec V. Union Stock Yards Nat. Bank, 69 Nob. ISO, 95 N. VV. 61, the court 
said that whore a note and mortgage are executed together, the provisions may 
be such an to make the note nonnegotiable a.s to all persons chargeable with notice 
thereof, and that the incorporation of a collateral agreement in a promissory note 
which requires or may cause payment to be mtule of uncertain sums at uncertain 
times before maturity, and thus renders it impo.ssible to siiy how much, if any- 
thing, will be due at maturity, renders the note nonnegotiable. In Kendall v. 
Selby, 66 Nebr. 60, 92 N. W. 178, 103 Am. St. Rep. 697, it w:ls held that a mort- 
gage, referred to in a note, providing that the mortgager should pay all taxes on 
the premises before they become delinquent, and that on his failure so to do the 
holder might pay the same, and recover ten jxt cent, interest thereon, and that 
the mortgage should stand a.s security then^f<jre, does not render the note non- 
negotiable. Hut in AUi'n v. Dunn, 71 Nebr. 831, 99 N. W. 680, it wa.s held that 
a mortgage containing a provision that in any taxes or a.sses.sment s shall be 
levied against the legal holder of the indebtedness on account of the loan within 
the state in which the mortgaged property is situated, the party of the first part 
shall pay them, renders a note secured by the mortgage nonnegotiable. 

6. Smith v. Nightingale, 2 Stark. 375; Dodge v. Emerson, 34 Me. 96; Roads 
v. Webb, 91 Me. 412. 

6. Legro v. Staples, 16 Me. 252; Lime Rock F. & M. Ins. Co. v. Hewitt, 60 
Me. 407. 

7. Smith V. Myers, 207 111. 126, 69 N. E. 858, affirming 107 lU. App. 410. 

8. Jones v. Simpson, 2 B. & C. 318. 

9. Bolton V. Dugdale, 4 B. & Ad. 619. 

10. Clark v. Percival, 2 B. & Ad. 660. 

11. Cashman v. Haynes, 20 Pick. 132. 

12. Marret v. Equitable Ins. Co., 54 Me. 537. 

13. Whitewell v. Winslow, 134 Mass. 346 ("with interest the same as Savings 
banks pay"); Cornish v. Woolverton, 32 Mont. 456, 81 Pac. 4, 108 Am. St. Rep. 
598; Randolph v. Hudson, 12 Okl. 516, 74 Pac. 946 ("with interest at the rate of 
12 per cent, from date if not paid at maturity"); Davis v. Boady, 17 S. D. 511, 
N. W. 719 ("with interest from date until fully paid at the rate of 10 per cent. 


a certain time.^^ But, id cerium est quod cerium reddi 'potest, and if the 
amount can be ascertained from the face of the paper, the form of 
expression is immaterial. ^^ Therefore a promise to pay bearer a 
certain sum per acre for so many acres as a certain tract contained, 

per annum, payable annually on principal and all over due unpaid interest. If 
the said interest is not paid when due, it becomes a part of the i)rincipal and draw 
interest at the rate of 12 fK*r cent, per annum until paid"). A provision in a note 
and mortgage that in case of default in .some [)articular the debt shall draw a 
higher rate of interest than would otherwise be the case is in the nature of a pen- 
alty, is nonenforceable, and its incorjxjration in the note does not affect its ne- 
gotiability. Kendall v. Selby, 66 Nebr. 60, 92 x\. W. 178, 103 Am. St. Rep. 097. 
In Hrown v.<-n, 112 Mo. App. 670, 87 S. W. o77, it wa.s held that a note, 
providing "and if interest be not paid .s<'miannually to become aa principal and 
b<;ar tin- .sjime rate of interest," was negotiable. 

14. Lamb v. Story, 4') .Mich. 4SS. Or "with 10% damages for of col- 
lection or may take fxxssi-ssion of, ami .s<'ll [jrojHTty to pay the unpaid balance, 
interest, damages, and costs of .sale, and that if there Ls a deficiency on such sale 
the receiver will pay it on demand." Kimball v. Mellon, 80 Wis. 133, 48 N. W. 
1100; Donald.son v. Grant, 1.5 Utah, 231, 49 Pac. 779. Held in this that the 
stipulation in a note which include<l the covenants of a mortgage by which the 
maker agrees to pay the taxes on the property, a.s.s<'.ssments, insurance, and wiuste, 
renders the note nonnegotiable. Contra, Hoiw v. Barker, 112 .\Io. 338, 20 S. W. 
5<)7, 34 .\in. St. Hep. 387; Clrutacui) v., 2 McLean, 581; Price v. Teal, 
4 Mcl^ean, 201; John.stjn v. P'rlsbie, 1.0 Mich. 2H6. 

16. Parsons v. JacLson, 99 U. S. (9 Otto) 440; I.amb v. Story, 45 Mich. 488. 
See vol. II, § HlMWi. An instniment certifying that th(? payee is the holder of a 
certain number of shares of nonassei«uible stock in a certain |)iece of property, 
and pmmLsing to retle<*m the stock with inten-st within a stati-*! time, is an «'ngage- 
ment to pay a certain sum of money, absolutely and unconditionally, within a 
specified time, and contains all the recjuisitj-s (jf a [iromi.-vsrjry note. Green wrKni 
Lodge No. 135, A. F. & A. .M. v. Priebatsch, 8:j .Miss. 120, 35 So. 427. See aLso 
Luther v. Crawfoni, 1 16 111. App. 351, affirmed 213 III. 596, 73 N. E. 430, holding 
that a note: "Deposited with me by David Luther eight hundred dollars in caah 
and three hundred dollars in Yorktown bonds, to be deUvered on call," was ne- 
gotiable. Where one part of a note states that it was given for $1,.0(K), but other 
parts of the note and the coufKjns attached, as also the mortgage securing the 
note, combine to .show that it was given for $1,000, in an action seeking to re- 
cover $1,000, objection that the note was for an indefinite amount wa.s held not 
good. Griggs V. Corson, 71 Kan. 884, 81 Pac. 471. In Loving v. .\nderson, 95 
Minn. 101, 103 X. W. 722, citing the text, it was held that a note promising to 
pay a certain amount on Oct. 1st., 1903, and containing a provision: "A discount 
of 6 per cent to be allowed if paid on or before Oct. 1, 1903," is negotiable, the 
court saving that an instrument whereby the maker promises to pay to the payee 
or order or bearer a definite sum plus or minus a definite amount or discount is a 
promissory note, and hence it is negotiable; but, if the be to pay a stated 
sum of money plus or minus an indefinite amount or discount, it is not a nego- 
tiable instrument. 


was held to be a note as soon as the number of acres was indorsed 
upon it.^^ 

Under Negotiable Instrument statute. — Under the statute ^^ it has 
been held that a stipulation in a mortgage requiring the mortgagor 
to pay, in addition to the principal debt and interest, such sums as 
the mortgagee may be required to incur for insurance, taxes, assess- 
ments and charges on the land, etc., is not imported into the note 
secured so as to render it nonnegotiable.'^ 

§ 54. Bills and notes payable with exchange. — If there be added 
to the amount "with current exchange on another place," the com- 
mercial character of the paper is not impaired, as that is capable of 
definite ascertainment.^^ Exchange is an incident to bills for the 
transmission of money from place to place. Its nature and effect are 
well understood in the commercial world, and merchants having 
occasion to use their funds at their place of business sometimes make 
the currency at that point the standard of payments made to them 
by their customers at a different point. Exchange preserves the 
equivalence of amounts in value, and does not introduce such an 
element of uncertainty as destroys the negotiability of the bill or 
note which embodies it in its terms.^" But there are cases which hold 
that an agreement to pay exchange destroys the neg()tial)le character 
of the paper, and renders it a special promise requiring proof of con- 
sideration.-^ Wh(Te there is such an addition to a bill or note, payable 

16. Smith V. Clopton, 4 Tex. 109. 

17. Appendix, sees. 1 (2), 2. 

18. Barker v. Sartori, GG 2G0, 119 P. GU. 

19. Price v. Teal, 4 McLean, 201 ; Mich. 137; Grutacup v. Woulloise, 2 McLean, 
581; Bradley v. Lill, 4 Biss. 473; First Nat. Bank v. Dubuque S. R. Co., .52 Iowa, 
378 isemble); First Nat. Bank v. Nordstorm, 70 Kan. 4S5, 78 Pac. 804; Bullick 
V. Taylor, 39 Mich. 137; Johnson v. Frisbio, 15 Mich. 28G; Smith v. Kendall, 9 
Mich. 241; Haslack v. Wolf, GG Nebr. GOO, 92 N. W. 574, GO L. R. A. 434, 103 
Am. St. Rep. 73G, quoting text; Morgan v. Edwards, 53 Wis. 599; Leggett v. Jones, 
10 Wis. 34. See Pollard v. Herries, 3 B. & P. 335, where a paper "payable in 
Paris, or, at the choice of the bearer, at the Union Bank in Dover, or at H.'s usual 
residence in London, according to the course of exchange upon Paris," was de- 
clared on and treated as a promissory note. Contra, Culbertson v. Nelson, 93 
Iowa, 187, Gl N. W. 854, 57 Am. St. Rep. 26G. 

20. Smith v. Kendall, 9 Mich. 242. 

21. Smith V. First State Bank of Tyler, 95 Minn. 496, 104 N. W. 3G9; Low v. 
Bliss, 24 111. 1G8; Read v. McNulty, 12 Rich. (Law) 445; Savings Bank v. Strother, 
28 S. C. 518. In Russell v. Russell, 1 McArthur, 263 (1874), it was held that a 
note made and payable in Michigan, "with current exchange on New York," 


where it is drawn, it is clear that it might be rejected as surplusage, 
there being in such case no exchange.^" 

§ 54a. It has been urged that an instrument payable "with ex- 
change" on another place cannot be regarded as a bill or note: 

(1) Because the fluctuations in the rate of exchange make it im- 
possible to ascertain the amount payable when the bill is issued; and 

(2) because, if this were not so, evidence dehors the instrument would 
be necessary to ascertain the amount due at maturity."^ The words 
of the rulings as to the requisites of negotiable instruments would lead 
to these conclusions, and the doctrine of the text has been declared 
"a slight modification of the general rule." ^'^ But reply may be 
made that instruments payable with exchange have been generally 
treated as commercial instruments by the business world and the 
courts; -^ that a fair construction of the statute of Anne, upon which 
many of the modern statutes are modeled, and which has been deemed 
i)y some of the courts only declaratory of the common law, does not 
necessarily impeach as a note an instrument so payable; and that the 
spirit of the rule requiring precision in the amount of negotiable 
instruments applies rather to principal amount than to the ancillary 
and incidental additions of interest or exchange.^ 

was not negotiable, the court rcganling the sum as uncertain, so that an indorsee 
couM not sue in his own name. Philatielphia Rank v. Newkirk, 2 Mile.s, 442. 

22. C.arrettson v. Hank, 47 Fe<i. sn?, citinK text; Cluu.ser v. Stone, 2!) 111. 116; 
Hill V. Tcxld, 2'.) 111. lO.i; The C'hri.stian County Hank v. Good, 44 Mo. App. 129, 
citing text; Chandler v. Calvert, S7 Mo. App. 368; Huck v. Harri.s, 125 Mo. App. 
365, 102 S. W. 640. See Hyles on BilLs (Sharswood's cil.), 73. 

23. Henjamin's Chalmers on Hills and Notes, IS; Fitzharris v. Leggatt, 10 Mo. 
App. 52S; Wind.sor Sav. Bank v. McMahon, .38 Fed. 283; Hughitt v. Johnson, 28 
Fed. SC..-,; FlacK v. School District, 4 N. Dak. 30, 5.8 N. W. 499; Nicely el al. v. 
Winnebago Nat. Hank of Rockford. 111., IS Ind. App. 30, 47 N. E. 476; Omer v. 
Sattley Mfg. Co., IS Ind. App. 122. 47 N. E. 644; Huck v. Harris, 125 Mo. App. 
305, 102 S. W. 640; Palmer v. Fahnestock, 9 Up. Can. C. P. 172; Saxton v. Steven- 
son, 23 Up. Can. C. P. .503; Cazet v. Kirk, 4 .\Ilen (N. B.), 543; Nash v. Gibbon, 
4 Allen (N. B.), 479. 

24. Leggett v. Jones, 10 Wis. 30; Clark v. Skeen, 61 Kan. 526; Hope v. Barker, 
43 Mo. App. 632, 34 Am. St. Rep. aS7, citing text; The Christian County Bank 
v. Good, 44 Mo. App. 129, citing text. 

25. Ivcggett v. Jones, 10 Wis. 30. 

26. In Morgan v. ExKvards, 53 Wis. 599, the court said, per Lyon, J., though 
the precise question \v:us not before it: "A note is payable in lawful money of 
the United States, which is at par in every portion of the country. If a note is 
made payable in Milwaukee with exchange on New York, it requires precisely 
the same sum of money to pay it as would be required had it been made payable 




§ 55. In the fifth place the medium of payment must be money. — 
It is indispensably rt'(iuisitc, in order to constitutt' a bill of exchange 
or negotiable promissory note, that the direction or promise be to pay 
in money.^^ And if the instrument be expressed to be payable "in 
cash or specific articles," in the alternative,^ or in merchandise, as 
for instance, "in good merchantable whisky at trade price," '^ or "in 
ginned cotton at eight cents per pound," ^ or "in work," ^^ or in any 
other article than money ^^ as for instance "an ounce of gold," ^^ it 
becomes a special contract, and by the law merchant loses its character 

in New York. The exchange is the cost of drawing a bill and transmitting the 
money to New York to meet it. In Leggett v. Jones, the note was payable at the 
Dodge County Bank with exchange on New York. Had the note boon made pay- 
able in New York, no one would claim that there was any uncortaintj- in the 
amount, although the maker would nocossarily have been subjected to the ex- 
pense, uncertain in amount, of providing funds there to meet it. It is precisely 
that expense which constitutes and governs the cost of exchange. Hence, the 
same sum of money which would have been required to pay the note in New York, 
would have paid it at the Dodge County Bank, including the exchange, according 
to its terms. In speaking of the cost of exchange, we refer only to transactions 
in money. Nominally, the cost of exchange may include the discount on the 
ordinary currency of the place where the bill is drawn, at the place of payment, 
and such discount may greatly fluctuate. But a note payable with exchange is 
not affected by those facts, for it cannot be payable in anything but money (un- 
less by virtue of some special statutory provision) and still be a note. There can 
be no discount on money to affect the cost of inland exchange. Hence, it may 
well be said, that the uncertainty in the amount due on a note which stipulates 
for the payment of exchange between two points, is rather apparent than real 
and substantial." 

27. Roads v. Webb, 91 Me. 410, 40 Am. Rep. 128; Chandler v. Calvert, 87 
Mo. App. 368; Chitty on Bills [*132], 153. 

28. Matthews v. Houghton, 2 Faufax, 377. 

29. Rhodes v. Lindley, Ohio Cond. 465, Chitty on Bills [*132]. 

30. LawTence v. Dougherty, 5 Yerg. 435. 

31. Quimby v. Merritt, 11 Humphr. 439. 

32. Auerbach v. Pritchett, 58 Ala. 451; Dixon v. Bovill, 3 Macq. H. L. 1. In 
Missouri contracts to pay in property, to order or to bearer, are made negotiable 
by statute. Spears v. Bond, 79 Mo. 470; Hyland v. Blodgett, 9 Oreg. 166; Mc- 
Clellan v. Coffin, 93 Ind. 456. In this case a note payable in services was held 

33. Roberts v. Smith, 58 Vt. 494. 


as commercial paper, Nor can it be for payment in "good East 
India bonds," ^^ or in "foreign bills," ^^ or "by bill or note," ^^ or in 
county scrip.^^ A bond payable "in notes of the United States Bank, 
or either of the Virginia banks," has been held not payable in money; ^ 
but where the bond was for a certain sum, and it was added, "which 
sum may be discharged in notes or bonds due on good solvent men 
in R.," it was held payable in money. ^^ But the courts would not go 
so far, we think, as to hold an instrument couched in such terms 
negotiable, '" for in order to possess that quality it should afford on its 
face every element necessary to fix its value, and such a paper would 
be a special contract rather than a negotiable bill or note. 

§ 56. Instruments payable in bank bills or in currency. — Strictly 
pursuing this principle, it ha.s been held in England that a note 
payable "in, or Bank of England notes," or payable "in Bank 
of England notes," wa.s not negotiable under the statute of Anne, 
though the bills of that bank were at any time redeemable in money."*^ 
In Pennsylvania, this ruling was followed upon an instrument payable 
in "current bank bills or notes," the court remarking that "it was 
payable in more than forty kinds of paper of different value." ^^ The 
Supreme Court of th(^ United States ha-s applied it where the note was 
payabk; in the "office notes of a bank." " When the medium of 
payment is expressed to be "good current money," or "(current 
money," it is not objectionable, as legal tender money is intended; " 
but if it be "in (-urrency" simply, the paper is not negotiable, as the 

34. Smith v. Boehm, Chitty, Jr., 234. 

36. Jones v. Fulcs, 4 Miuss. 245; Yoihik v. Adams, 6 Mass. 182. 

36. Chitty on Bills [•132], 143, Chitty, Jr., 538. 

37. Jones v. State, 40 .\rk. 347. 

38. Beirne v. Dunlap, 8 Leigh, 514. 

39. Butcher v. Carlisle, 12 Gratt. 520. 

40. Williams v. Sims, 22 Ala. 512. 

41. See Rex v. Wilcox, Bayley on Bills (6th ed.), 11 (in cash or Bank of Eng- 
land notes); Ex parte Imeson, 2 Rose, 225 (Bank of England notes). 

42. McCormick v. Trotter, 10 Serg. & R. 94. 

43. Irvine v. Lowr\-, 14 Pet. 293. 

44. Wharton v. Morris, 1 Dall. 124. See the following cases where the in- 
struments were held negotiable: Graham v. Adams, 5 Ark. 261 (good current 
money of the State); Wilbum v. Greer, 6 Ark. 255 (Arkansas money); Black v. 
Ward, 27 Mich. 173; Searey v. Vance, Mart. & Y. 225 (Tennessee money) ; Chrys- 
ler V. Rendis, 43 N. Y. 209 (in gold coin). But contra, McCherd v. Ford, 3 T. B. 
Mon. 166. 


term includes all varieties of the circulating medium.^^ But the 
decisions, as will be seen from the subjoined notes, are contradictory/^ 

45. Lampton v. Haggard, 3 Mon. 149; Farwell v. Kennett, 7 Mo. 595; Mobile 
Bank v. Brown, 42 Ala. 108; Rindskoff v. Barrett, 11 Iowa, 172; "in current 
bills," Collins v. Lincoln, 11 Vt. 26S; Ford v. Mitchell, 15 Wis. 304. And like 
decisions were rendered where the bill or note was payable "in common currency 
of Arkansas," Dilhird v. Evans, 4 Ark. 1S5; "in current bank paper," Campbell v. 
Weister, 1 Litt. 30: "in notes receivable in bank," Breckenridgc v. Ralls, 4 Mon. 
533; "in current bank notes," Gamble v. Hatton, Peck, 130; Kirkpatrick v. Mc- 
Cullough, 3 Humphr. 171; Whiteman v. Childress, G Humphr. 303; Simpson v. 
Moulders, 3 Caldw. 429; McDonnell v. Keller, 4 Caldw. 258; "in Tennessee 
currency," 2 Yerg. 448; "in Canada bills," Gray v. Worden, 29 Up. Can. Q. B. 
535; "in bank bills," Simpson v. Meneden, 3 Caldw. 429; "in New York funds or 
their equivalent," Hasbrook v. Palmer, 2 McLean, 10; "in current bank bills," 
Fry V. Rousseau, 3 McLean, lOG; "in foreign bills," Jones v. Fales, 4 Maas. 245; 
"in paper medium," Lange v. Kohne, 1 McCord, 115; "in current bank notes," 
Little V. Phccnix Bank, 2 Hill, 425; Gray v. Donahoe, 4 Watts, 400. See Pardee 
V. Fish, 60 N. Y. 265; "in Pennsylvania or New York paper currency," Lieber v. 
Goodrich, 5 Cow. 186; "in current notes of the State of North Carolina," Warren v. 
Brown, 64 N. C. 381; "in current funds of Pittsburg," Wright v. Hart, 44 Pa. St. 
454; "in current funds," Cornwell v. Pumphrey, 9 Ind. 135; Haddock v. Woods, 

46 Iowa, 433; Johnson v. Henderson, 76 N. C. 227; Lafayette Bank v. Ringel, 
51 Ind. 393; Piatt v. Sauk County Bank, 17 Wis. 222; Lindsey v. McClelland, 18 
Wis. 481. 

46. In the following cases instruments expressed to be payable as indicated 
were held negotiable: "in current funds," Shoemakers' Bank v. Street, 16 Ohio 
(N. S.), 5; Bull V. Kasson, 123 U. S. 112; Laird v. State, 61 Md. 309, citing the 
text. Contra in Texas Land Co. v. Carroll, 63 Tex. 52; "in current Ohio bank 
notes," Swetland v. Creigh, 15 Ohio, 118; "in current funds of the State of Ohio," 
White V. Richmond, 16 Ohio, 5; "current bank notes of Cincinnati," Morris v. 
Edwards, 1 Ohio, 80; "currency of this place," Dugan v. Campbell, 1 Ohio, 47; 
"in funds current in the city of New York," Lacy v. Holbrook, 4 Ala. 88; "current 
money of Alabama," Carter v. Penn, 4 Ala. 140: "in good current money of this 
State {or in Arkansas money)," Graham v. Adams, 5 Ark. 261; Wilburn v. Greer, 
1 Eng. 255; but otherwise if "in Arkansas money of the Fayetteville branch," Haw- 
kins V. Watkins, 5 Ark. 481; in New York "in New York State bills or specie," 
Keith V. Jones, 9 Johns. 120; "in bank notes current in the city of New York," Judah 
V. Harris, 19 Johns. 144; "in North Carolina bank notes," Deberry v. Darnell, 
5 Yerg. 451; "in lawful current money of Pennsylvania," Wharton v. Morris, 
1 Dall. 124; "in foreign money," Sanger v. Stimpson, 8 Mass. 260; "in currency," 
Butler V. Paine, 8 Minn. 324; Hunt v. Divine, 37 111. 137; Swift v. Whitney, 20 
111. 144; Laughlin v. Marshall, 19 111. 390; Peru v. Farnsworth, 18 111. 563; Drake 
v. Markle, 21 Ind. 433; Fry v. Dudley, 20 L. Ann. 368; Klauber v. Biggerstaff, 

47 Wis. 551; Phelps v. Town, 14 Mich. 374 (semble); Howe v. Hartness, 11 Ohio 
St. 449; "in currency of the State of Mississippi," Mitchell v. Hewitt, 5 Smedes & 
M. 361; "in currency of Missouri," Cockrell v. Kirkpatrick, 9 Mo. 688; "in New 
York State currency," Ehle v. Chittenango Bank, 24 N. Y. 549; "in current bank 
notes," Pardee v. Fish, 60 N. Y. 265; Fleming v. Nail, 1 Tex. 246. A note for 


In some cases it is held that the meaning of such phrases as " current 
funds," may be explained by parol evidence as to the understanding 
of the parties and that they may be shown to have meant money. ^"^ 
In business paper it is best to adhere to strict rules; and as certainty 
is of the first moment in commercial dealings, and paper payable in 
fluctuating values is uncertain and delusive, we think sound judgment 
approves the doctrine of the text. Money alone is legal tender, and 
only the note which represents money should be held negotiable. It 
should be expressed simply as payable in dollars, which have a definite 
signification fixed by law.^^ 

§ 57. It has been suggested that since Congress has declared, and 
the Supreme Court held, that the treasury notes of the United States 
shall be "legal tender" in discharge of debts, the term "in currency" 
should be const ru(>d to mean legal tender currency, and instruments 
so payable should be deemed negotiable. But "the very reverse of 
this proposition is true," as said in Iowa, in respect to a certificate of 
deposit payable in currency. And, continued Beck, J.: "It is evident 
that it was not intended that payment should be made in coin, or 
'legal tender' government notes. The holder of the paper could have 
demanded payment thereon in 'legal tender' money, without any 
words in the instrument indicating the currency in which payment 
should be made. * * * Some other medium of circulation is 
described by the word currency." ^^ In Arkansas it has been held 
that a note payable "in greenback currency" was negotiable, be- 
cause legal tender currency, and not national or other bank notes, was 
intended; -^ and in New York it has been said by Church, Ch. J.: 
"The objection that the instrument is not a promissory note because 
payable in paper currency, is answered by the suggestion that this 
must be taken to refer to the legal tender paper currency which under 

Sl.OOO, payable "in levee bonds of the State of Arkansas at par" is not an under- 
taking for the payment of money but for the payment in such bonds absolute so 
that the payee on the maker's default is entitletl to damages only to the extent 
of the value of such bonds and not to the sum of money named with interest. 
Johnson v. Dooley, G.5 Ark. 71, 44 S. W. 1032; Kampmann v. McCormick, 24 
Tex. Civ. App. 4«)2. 

47. Haddock v. Woods, 46 Iowa, 435; Huse v. Hamblin, 29 Iowa, 501; Pilmer 
V. Branch Bank, 16 Iowa, 321. 

48. Omohundro v. Crump, 18 Gratt. 703. 

49. V. Hamblin, 29 Iowa, 244. See also Dille v. White, 132 la. 327, 109 
N. W. 909. 10 L. R. A. (N. S.) 510. But see Fry v. Dudley, 20 La. Ann. 368. 

50. Burton v. Brooks, 25 Ark. 215. 


the United States laws and decisions is money." " The United 
States Supreme Court has held that a check payable "in current 
funds" is negotiable.^2 National bank notes would be embraced by 
these words, and the decision is not in consonance with the precedents 
that require negotiable paper to be payable in money. In England, 
Bank of England notes were made legal tender, but nevertheless a 
promise to pay in that medium was not considered a promissory 
note.^^ And similar views were taken in Canada.^^ 

§ 58. It is not necessary however that the money should be that 
current in the place of payment, or where the bill is drawn; it may be 
in the money of any country whatever." But it has been hold that it 
is necessary that the instrument should express the specific denomina- 
tion of money when it is payable in the money of a foreign country, 
in order that the courts may be able to ascertain its equivalent value ; 
otherwise it is not negotiable. Thus in New York, where a note was 
given for a certain sum "payable in Canada money," it was held not 
negotiable; and the court said: 

"This view of the case is not incompatible with a bill or note 
payable in money of a foreign denomination, or any other denomina- 
tion, being negotiable, for it can be paid in our own coin of equivalent 
value, to which it is always reduced by a recovery. A note payable in 
pounds, shillings, and pence, made in any country, is but another 
mode of expressing the amount in dollars and cents, and is so under- 
stood judicially. The course, therefore, in an action on such an in- 

61. Frank v. Wessels, 64 N. Y. 158 (1876). 

52. Bull V. Kasson, 123 U. S. 112, Field, J., saying: "Within a few years com- 
mencing with the first issue in this country of notes declared to have the quality 
of legal tender, it has been a common practice of drawers of bills of exchange or 
checks, or makers of promissory notes, to indicate whether the same are to be 
paid in gold or silver, or in such notes; and the term 'current funds' has been used 
to designate any of these, all being current and declared by positive enactment 
to be legal tender." Woodruff v. Mississippi, 162 U. S. 302, 16 Sup. Ct. Rep. 820. 
See section 1651. See also Krieg v. Palmer Nat. Bank (Ind. App.), 95 N. E. 

63. Rex V. Wilcox, Bayley on Bills (6th ed.), 11, 1 Ames on Bills and Notes, 39. 

64. Gray v. Worden, 29 Up. Can. Q. B. 535. The paper was payable in Canada 
bills, which, by Stat. 29 & 30 Vict., chap. 10, were made legal tender, Wilson, J., 
saying: "They have no intrinsic value as coin. They represent only, and are the 
signs of value." 

55. Chitty on Bills [*133], 154, Story on Bills, § 43; Black v. Ward, 27 Mich. 
193; Thompson v. Sloan, 23 Wend. 71; King v. Hamilton, 12 Fed. 478, citing the 


strument, is to aver and prove the value of the sum expressed, in our 
own tenderable coin." ^^ 

Intention, to be gathered from the face of the paper, according to 
fixed rules, is the test of negotiability, and we do not see how the idea 
of its possessing a negotiable quality is excluded by the mere fact 
that the denomination of foreign money is not set out. A case, re- 
markable for its learning and ability, decided by the Supreme Court 
of Michigan, adopts this view; and there it has been held that a note 
payable "in Canada currency" is negotiable, the terms being equiv- 
alent to Canada money.^^ 

Under Negotiable Instrument statute. — The statute declares the rule 
that an instrument which contains an order or promise to do any act 
in addition to tiic payment of money is not negotiable,'^ and such is a 
note promising to pay a certain sum and deliver one-half the wheat 
grown on certain land each year as a payment.^^ 



§ 59. In the sixth place it is essential to the negotiability of the 
bill or note that it purport to be only for the payment of money .^'' 

66. Thompson v. Sloan, 23 Wend. 71. 

67. Black v. Ward, 27 Mich. 193 (1873), Campbell, J., saying: "A note payable 
in Canada currency means no more and no less than that it is payable in Canada 
money at the Canada standard, and that it i.s governed as to the amount it calls 
for by the .same rules a.s if it had been m;ule in Canada, and payable in so many 
dollars, without containing any further direction." "It is evident the language 
waa used to exclude the idea that it should be paid in dollars according to our 
paper standard, and to put it on the footing of a gold contract." "It is urged that 
this is superfluous, and that as ever>' one is presumecl to know the law, it would 
not have been [)ut in except for some purpose which would change its legal import. 
The objection appears to us to be far-fetched and unreasonable. This cited 
above sufficiently answers it. A verj* large proportion of the bonds and deeds 
drawn up in this country describe the money secured or paid as 'lawful money 
of the United States,' when there can be no other lawful money in the republic, 
and when it is clearly superfluous." 

68. Appendix, sec. 5. 

69. Thompson v. Kock, 62 Wash. 438, 113 Pac. 1110. 

60. Fletcher v. Thompson, 55 N. H. 308; Humphrey v. Beckwith, 48 Mich. 
151; Edwards v. Ramsey, 30 Minn. 91; Mast v. Matthews, 30 Minn. 442; Stevens 
V. Johnson, 27 Minn. 172; Killam v. Schoeps, 20 Kan. 312, citing the text; Con- 
tinental Nat. Bank v. Wells, 41 N. W. 409; Ingham v. Dudley, 60 Iowa, 16; 
Chapman v. Steiner, 5 Kan. App. 326, 48 Pac. 607, quoting text; Chandler v. 


Such at least may be stated to be the general rule, for if any other 
agreement of a different character be engrafted upon it it becomes a 
special contract clogged and involved with other matters, and has 
been deemed to lose thereby its character as a commercial instru- 
ment. But at the present time we think that this general rule is 
subject to the qualification that if the superadded agreement do not 
impair the certainty of the promise to pay the certain amount named, 
but only facilitates the means of its collection, it does not in any 
degree destroy the negotiability of the instrument, but is embodied 
in the contract of all the parties and passes as an incident of the paper 
itself to every holder.''^ 

§ 60. In accordance with the general rule above stated, it has 
been held that if a note for a certain amount be. given for the hire of 
a negro, to which is added, "said negro to be furnished with the usual 
quantity of clothing," was not a negotiable promissory note, but a 
special contract for the hiring and clothing of the negro.^'- And this 
seems to us clearly the correct doctrine, though the view has been 
taken that such a paper is negotiable, the obligation to pay the money 
only passing to an indorsee.^^ So it has been held that if the instru- 
ment be to pay money, and also " to deliver up horses and a wharf; " ^^ 
or to pay money "and take up a certain outstanding note," ^^ it is not 
a negotiable note. So if it be to pay money " and all fines according to 

Calvert, 87 Mo. App. 368. In First Nat. Bank of San Francisco v. Golden (Cal. 
App.), 126 P. 498, an order on its face payable upon demand, but which was in 
fact not to be paid until 30 days notice was given to the drawee, and its payment 
was also conditional upon its being accompanied by the drawer's pass-book, was 
held to be nonnepotiable. 

61. National Bank v. Gray, 18 S. C. 286, citing text. But see Warren v. Gru- 
well, 5 Kan. App. 523, 48 Pac. 205. Checks is.sued to employees and redeemable 
only in merchandise, are not negotiable. Attoyac River Lumber Co. v. Payne 
(Tex. Civ. App.), 122 S. W. 278. Memoranda "non-negotiable or transferable" 
appearing on the face of a note, and "this note is not transferable nor to be used 
as collateral without the written consent of principal and indorsers," appearing 
on the back thereof, destroy its negotiability. And a further memorandum 
"And if so used shall be absolutely void," is noneffective. Such a note is assign- 
able as any nonnegotiable paper. Herrick v. Edwards, 106 Mo. App. 633, 81 
S. W. 466. 

62. Barnes v. Gorman, 9 Rich. 297. 

63. Baxter v. Stewart, 4 Sneed, 213; Gaines v. Shelton, 47 Ala. 413; Woodruff 
v. Mississippi, 162 U. S. 291. 

64. Martin v. Chauntry, 2 Stra. 1271. 

65. Cook V. Satterlee, 6 Cow. 108. Or "to pay the taxes on the property, as- 
sessments, insurance, and waste." Donaldson v. Grant, 15 Utah, 231, 49 Pac. 779. 


rule," it is not a negotiable note, and the additional words cannot be 
construed as insensible surplusage. "It is quite possible," said 
Parke, B., "that they have a meaning, and may import that certain 
pecuniary fines or forfeitures are to be paid by the defendants; and, 
if so, this is certainly no promissory note within the statute, but is a 
specific agreement to do certain things." ^ 

So likewise where the following words were added the instruments 
were held special agreements and not negotiable: "If any dispute 
should arise about the sale of goods for which the note is given, it is to 
be void," or it is 'only a security for all ijalances up to its amount.' ^ 
So if it provide that the payee is to receive less than the principal sum 
if it be paid before maturity .^^ So, where the promise was to pay H. 
a certain amount, atlding, 'and said H. is to build a barn and fence, 
and said P. (the promisor) is to have all the land back of the house.' " ''^ 
So, where the note contained a condition that if not paid when due, 
the penalty for which it was given should belong to the payee.^^ 
Where the promise is coupled with a condition that the sale or removal 
of the property for which it was given shall cause the debt to mature 
at once, the objection prevails.^- Where a note contained a provision 
making it in effect a chattel mortgage without power of sale before 
maturity, it wixs held negotiable, since the debt evidenced thereby 
was not subject to be diminished before maturity." 

In Rhode Island where there was a memorandum on the note 
"issued as collateral to A. & W. Sprague Mfg. Co.'s draft accepted 

66. Ayrey v. Fearnsides, 4 M. & W. 1G8. 

67. Hartley v. Wilkin.son, 4 Caniph. 127. 

68. Leeds v. Lancashire, 2 Campb. 205. 

69. Fralick v. Norton, 2 Mich. 130. 

70. Fletcher v. Thompson, 5.5 N. H. 208. 

71. Wright V. Travers, 73 Mich. 494. 

72. Yimt Nat. Bank v. Carson, 60 Mich. 433. In Schmidt v. PeKg (Mich.), 
137 N. W. 524, a provision in notes given for a machine, that "if default is made 
in the payment of any note, or the machine is levied upon or the undersigned 
attempts to sell or remove the same, said company may declare all notes due," 
was held not to render the notes nonnegotiable on account of uncertainty as to 
time of payment — the notes having been given after the delivery of the property, 
and not on a conditional sale. A certi6cate of indebtedness which contains, in 
addition to a promise to pay money, an agreement to keep free from incumbrance 
property on which the value of collateral, pledged for the security of the certifi- 
cate, depends, is not a negotiable instrument. Strickland v. National Salt Co. 
(N. J. L.), 81 A. 828, affirming decree 76 A. 1048, 77 N. J. Eq. 328. 

73. Bank of Carroll v. Taylor, 67 Iowa, 573. See under § 52, as to conditional 
sale clauses. 



by Hoyt, Sprague & Co., No. 6806," the court considered it not 
negotiable because not payable at all events, it being evident that the 
payment of the drafts would at once discharge both the makers and 
indorsers of the note and render said note null and voidJ^ 

§ 61. Additions (1) of power to confess judgments; (2) of waivers 
of exemptions ; and (3) of stipulations to pay collection or attorney's 
fees. — Sometimes it is stated in the note that (1) the promisor 
appoints the payee, or order, or holder to confess judgment for him 
when the note is payable; or (2) waives benefit of appraisement laws, 
or homestead exemptions, where such laws or exemptions exist, or 
(3) stipulates for payment of collection and attorney's fees. The 
authorities differ as to the negotia])ility of such instruments; but the 
later cases maintain that they are negotiable, and the principle is 
becoming established that, if the note is in itself certain and perfect 
without conditions, and there is merely superadded the provision or 
declaration that the payee or holder may confess judgment for the 
maker; or that certain rights are waived in respect to its collection, 
then the negotiability of the paper is not destroyed.^^ In Pennsyl- 
vania, when a note contains a power to confess judgment, it has been 
the practice to allow judgment to be taken before maturity in order 
to obtain a lien upon real estate, but to delay issuing execution thereon 
until after maturity, and a stipulation in a note of the above kind 
under that practice, is held to render such a note nonnegotiable.'^^ 

74. American Nat. Bank v. Sprague, 14 R. I. 411; Gibson v. Hawkins, 69 Ga. 
354; Haskell v. Lambert, 16 Gray, 592. See post, § 150. 

76. See Ohio case, cited end of note 5. 2 Parsons on Notes and Bills, 147; 
Walker v. Woollen, 54 Ind. 164; Lyon v. Martin, 31 Kan. 412, citing the text; 
Hughlitt V. Johnson, 28 Fed. 865. In Clements v. Hull, 35 Ohio St. 141, it was 
held that power to any attorney of record to appear and confess judgment in favor 
of any holder did not affect negotiability of the note, and might be executed in 
favor of any holder, even if he had only the equitable title. And where a promis- 
sory note contains a clause waiving "all differences on the ground of any exten- 
sion of the time of its payment, that may be given by its holders to them (the 
makers) or either of them," such stipulation destroys the negotiability of the 
note. See Merchants & Mechanics' Sav. Bank v. Fraze, 9 Ind. App. 161, 36 
N. E. 378, 53 Am. St. Rep. 341; Gilmore v. Hirst, 56 Kan. 626, 44 Pac. 603, cit- 
ing text; Mumford v. Tolman, 157 III. 258, 41 N. E. 617; First Nat. Bank v. 
Alexander, 161 Ala. 580, 50 So. 45; Osborn v. Hawley, 19 Ohio, 130. The nego- 
tiability of a note is not affected by a mortgage provision that the note may be 
declared due before the day fixed for payment, upon the happening of some con- 
tingency. Hunter v. Clarke, 184 111. 158, 56 N. E. 297, 75 Am. St. Rep. 160. 

76. Sweeney v. Thickstun, 77 Pa. St. 131; Overton v. Tyler, 3 Barr, 346. In 


Under Negotiable Instrument statute. ~\]nder the statute/' it has 
been held that when the time of payment depends upon the will of 
the holder and is uncertain, the instrument is not negotiable, as when 
a note contains a power of attorney by which judgment may be en- 
tered upon it at any time after its date whether due or not. 

§ 62. Addition in bills and notes of stipulations to pay collection 
or attorney's fees. — Quite frequently in recent years bills and 
notes are met with, framed in other respects in the usual negotiable 
forms, but containing the additional stipulation on the part of the 
drawer or maker to pay collection or attorney's fees, and they have 
elicited from the courts various and conflicting decisions. The cases 
may be divided into four classes. 

First. Those which sustain both the validity of the stipulation 
and the negotiability of the instrument.^* 

Zimmcrmiin v. Anderson, 07 Pa. St. 421, it \va.s held that a note in the following 
terms was negotiable: "Six months after date I promise to pay to E. W. Lowe, or 
order, one hundred and twenty-five dollars, for value received, with interest, 
waiving the right of appeal, and of all valuation, appraisement, stay, and e.xemp- 
tion laws." 

77. Appendix, sec. 1 (3); Wisconsin Yearly Meeting v. Babler, 115 Wis. 189, 
91 X. W. ()7S. 

78. Lockwood v. Lindsey, 6 App. Caa. (D. C.) 390 (as to law of Texjis); In re 
Kt-eton, Stell et Co., 120 Fed. 420 (under the law of Texas); Schlesinger v. Arline, 
31 Fed. 04S; Wil.>«)n Sewing Machine Co. v. Moreno, 29 Am. Rep. 4f)0; First Nat. 
Bank v. Slaughter, 9S Ala. 002, 14 So. .545, 39 Am. St. Rep. 88; Farmers' Nat. 
Hank v. Riusmessen, 1 Dak. 00; Smith v. Baker, 137 Ga. 298, 72 S. E. 1093, upon 
giving statutory- notice; Dorsey v. WolfT, 142 III. 589, 32 N. E. 495, 34 Am. St. 
Hep. 99, quoting text; Shenandoah Nat. Bank v. Marsh, 89 Iowa, 273, 50 N. W. 
458, 48 Am. St. Rep. 381; Sperry v. Horr, 32 Iowa, 184 (1871); Seaton v. Scovill, 
18 Kan. 435; Deitrich v. Baylie, 23 La. Ann. 707 (1871); Clifton v. Bank of 
Aberdeen, 75 Miss. 929, 23 So. 394, text cited; Brahan v. First Nat. Bank of 
Clarksville, 72 Miss. 200, 10 So. 203; Bank of Commerce v. Fuqua, 11 Mont. 285, 
28 Pac. 291, 28 Am. St. Rep. 461, text cited; Stark v. Olsen, 44 Nebr. 040, 03 N. W. 
473; Roberts v. Snow, 27 Nebr. 425, 43 N. VV. 241; Kemp v. Claus, 8 Nebr. 24; 
Heard v. Dubuque Bank, 8 Nebr. 10 (1878); Oppenheimer v. Bank, 97 Tenn. 19, 
30 S. W. 705, .50 Am. St. Rep. 778, quoting and approving text; Tyler v. Walker, 
101 Tenn. 300, 47 S. W. 424; Hamilton Gin Co. v. Sinker, 74 Tex. 52, citing the 
text; Tomlinson v. H. P. Drought & Co. (Tex. Civ. App.), 127 S. W. 262; Elmore 
V. Rugely (Tex. Civ. App.), 107 S. W. 151; Ramsey v. Thomas, 14 Tex. Civ. 
App. 431, 38 S. W. 2.59; Hopkins v. Halliburton & Parr, 6 Tex. Civ. App. 451, 
25 S. W. 1005; Salisbury v. Stewart, 15 Utah, 308, 49 Pac. 777, 62 Am. St. Rep. 
934; Second Nat. Bank v. Auglin, 6 Wash. 403, 33 Pac. 1056. See Cornish v. 
Woolverton, 32 Mont. 450, 81 Pac. 4, 108 Am. St. Rep. .598. In the following 
cases, such instruments were held valid but the question of negotiability waa 


These cases consider that the stipulation is valid because it is an 
indemnification assured by the maker against the consequences of 
his own act, for, unless in default, he will not have to pay the addi- 

not raised: Rinker v. Laucr, 13 Idaho, 163, 88 Pac. 1057; Harris Mfg. Co. v. 
Anfinson, 31 Minn. 182; Johnston Harvester Co. v. Clark, 30 Minn. 308, citing 
the text; Bank of Duncan v. Brittain, 92 Miss. 545, 46 So. 163; Duggan v. 
Champlin, 75 Miss. 441, 23 So. 179; Meacham v. Pinson, 60 Miss. 217; Eyrich v. 
Capital State Bank (Miss.), 6 So. 615; Howey v. Ge.>«ler, 16 N. Mex. 319, 117 
Pac. 734; Peyser v. Cole, 11 Oreg. 39; Bank of California v. Union Packing Co., 
60 Wash. 456, 111 Pac. 573. In Garretson v. Purdy, 3 Dak. Ter. 178, it was held 
that negotiability was destroyed when the note contained a stipulation, not for a 
definite sum as attorney's fee, but for payment of reasonable fees. In HoLstt)n 
Nat. Bank v. Wood, 125 Tenn. 6, 140 S. W. 31, it was held that while a stipulation 
in a note for attorney's fees is valid and will be enforced, the provision as to any 
particular amount is not binding, and will not be enforced unless it appears rea- 
sonable to the court. After quoting and approving text, the Supreme Court of 
Oregon said: "A careful examination has satisfied us that the weight of authority, 
and especially the more recent decisions is strongly in favor of the doctrine that 
the negotiability of a promissory note is in no way affected by a stipulation for a 
reasonable attorney's fee" (citing numerous cases). Benn v. Kutzschan, 24 
Oreg. 28, 32 Pac. 763. On the other hand, the Oregon Supreme Court, in an earlier 
case, held that a provision in a note to pay a stipulated allowance of 10 per cent, 
attorney's fees, was void, as oppressive and unconscionable, the court stating 
that a provision for "a reasonable attorney's fee" was unobjectionable. Levens 
V. Briggs, 21 Oreg. 333, 28 Pac. 15. In Indiana a note containing a stipulation 
for attorney's fee on nonpaj-ment at maturity is vaUd and negotiable. Proctor 
V. Baldwin, 82 Ind. 370; Johnson v. Crossland, 34 Ind. 334; Smith v. Silvers, 32 
Ind. 321 ; Smith v. Muncie Nat. Bank, 29 Ind. 159. In First Nat. Bank v. Canat- 
sey, 34 Ind. 149, drawers, indorsers, and acceptor were held liable where the bill 
agreed to pay reasonable attorney's fees. See also Hubbard v. Harrison, 38 Ind. 
323. In that state a statute provided (1 Rev. Stat. 1876, p. 149), " that any 
and all agreements to pay attorney's fees, depending upon any condition therein 
set forth, and made part of any bill of exchange, acceptance, draft, promissory 
note, or other written e\'idence of indebtedness, are hereby declared illegal and 
void, pro\'ided that nothing in this section shall be construed as appljnng to con- 
tracts made previous to the taking effect of this act. " After this act it was held 
that the stipulation in a note to pay attorney's fees "if suit be brought" was 
conditional and void. Churchman v. Martin, 54 Ind. 380, the court also holding 
that an unconditional stipulation to pay five per cent, attorney's fees w;us vaUd. 
That under the statute an unconditional stipulation would be valid, sec Brown 
V. Barber, 59 Ind. 533; Smock v. Ripley, 62 Ind. 81; Gar\'er v. Pontius, 66 Ind. 
191; Maxwell v. Morehart, 66 Ind. 301; Farmers' Nat. Bank v. Sutton Mfg. Co., 
52 Fed. 191. A statute providing that a negotiable instrument may contain a 
provision for reasonable attorney's fee, in effect takes away from the maker of a 
note a defense he might have asserted against it as a nonnegotiable instrument, 
which defense is simply one on the remedy, and though applied to a note executed 
before the enactment of the statute is not unconstitutional. Bullard v. Smith, 
28 Mont. 387, 72 Pac. 761. 


tional amount; ^^ that it is consonant with public policy- because it 
adds to the value of the paper; has a tendency to lower the rate of 
discount, not only because it promises less expensive collection, but 
bears evidence of a greater degree of confidence on the part of the 
maker in his ability to pay without suit ; ^ and that it does not impair 
the negotiability of the instrument, for the reasons: that the sum to 
be paid at maturity is certain; that commercial paper is expected to 
be paid promptly; that if so paid, no element of uncertainty enters 
into the contract; that it ceases to be negotiable, in the full sense of 
the term, if not paid at maturity, and that the additional agreement 
relates rather to the remetly upon the note, if a legal remedy be pur- 
sued, than to the sum which the maker is bound to pay; and that it is 
not different in its character from a cognovit, which, when attached 
to promissory notes, docs not destroy their negotiability.^^ 

Second. The second class of cases enforce the stipulation, but 
deny the negotiability of the instrument.*- They rest on the consid- 

79. Moore v. Staaer, 6 Ind. App. 364, 32 X. E. 563, 33 N. E. .563, 33 X. E. 665. 

80. StaF)leton v. Louisville Banking Co., 95 Ga. 802, 23 S. E. 81, citing text; 
Heard v. Dubuque Bank, 8 Xebr. 10 (1878). 

81. Xicely et al. v. Winnebago Xat. Bank of Rockford, 111., 18 Ind. App. 30, 
47 X. E. 476, quoting text; Stoneman v. Pylc, 35 Ind. 103 (1871); Proctor v. Bald- 
win, 82 Ind. 370; Sperrj- v. Horr, 32 Iowa, 184 (1871); Cherr>' v. Sprague, 187 
Mass. 113, 72 X. E. 4.56, 67 L. R. A. 33, 105 Am. St. Rep. .^Sl; Mackintosh v. 
Gibbs, 81 X. J. L. .577, .SO Atl. .554, affirming 79 X. J. L. 40, 74 Atl. 708. In 
Cudahy Packing Co. v. State Xat. Bank, 134 Fed. .5.3-8, the court s.aid that the 
general rule of certainty rwjuires commercial and not mathematical certainty. 
Following the reasoning underlying the classes of cases referred to in the te.xt 
and upholding the validity and negotiability of contracts containing such provi- 
sions, the Supreme Court of Washington has dwided that attorney's fees are not 
collectible except in case of default in payment of the principal debt, and that a 
suit to collect an installment of interest due does not warrant an allowance of a 
fee to the attorney for plaintiff. Merrill v. Muzzy. 11 Wash. 16, .39 Pac. 279. 
WTiere a note stipulated that upon default the holder might sell collateral, and 
after the princess had been appUed to the payment of the note, and after charging 
all costs and attorney's fees, any excess was to be paid to the maker of the note, 
a sale of the collateral by the holder was contemplated, and the holder was not 
entitled to attorney's fees when the collateral was sold by receivers and the holder 
merely proved his claim and received paj-ment. Merchants' Xat. Bank of Balti- 
more V. Roxbur>- Distilling Co., 196 F. 76. 

82. Chestertown Bank of Maryland v. Walker, 163 Fed. 510 (in Marjland); 
Hardin v. Olson, 14 Fed. 705 (in Minnesota); Findlay v. Pott, 131 Cal. 385, 63 
Pac. 694; Kendall v. Parker, 103 Cal. 319, 37 Pac. 401, 42 .\m. St. Rep. 117; 
Harber v. Brown, 101 Cal. 445, 35 Pac. 1035; First Xat. Bank v. Falkenhan, 94 
Cal. 141, 29 Pac. 866; First Xat. Bank v. Babcock, 94 Cal. 96, 29 Pac. 415, 28 
Am. St. Rep. 94; .\dams v. Seaman, 82 Cal. 037; Chase v. ^^^litmo^e, 68 Cal. 545; 

86 Requisites of bills and notes § 62 

erations as stated in Pennsylvania, by Sharswood, J. (in Woods v. 
North), where to the note was added, "and five per cent, collection 
fees if not paid when due," that "it is a necessary quality of nego- 
tiable paper, that it should be simple, certain, unconditional and not 
subject to any contingency. * * * Interest and costs of protest 
after nonpayment at maturity are necessary legal incidents of the 
contract, and the insertion of them in the body of the note would not 
alter its negotiability. Neither does a clause waiving exemption, for 
that in no way touches the imphcity and certainty of the paper. But 
a collateral agreement as here, depending too, as it does, upon its 
reasonableness, to be determined by the verdict of a jury, is entirely 

Bowie V. Hall, 69 Md. 433; Mar>'land Fertilizing Co. v. Newman, 60 Md. 584, 
45 Am. Rep. 750; Jones v. Radatz, 27 Minn. 240; German-American Bank v. 
Martin, 129 Mo. App. 484, 107 S. W. 1108; Johnston v. Spcer, 92 Pa. St. 227; 
Woods V. North, 84 Pa. St. 407 (1877); Sweeney v. Thickstun, 77 Pa. St. 131; 
Sylvester Beckley Co. v. Alewine, 48 S. C. 308, 26 S. E. 607; Savings Bank v. 
Strother, 28 S. C. 504; Kimball v. Mellon, 80 Wis. 133, 48 N. W. 1100; Continental 
Nat. Bank v. McGeoch, 73 Wis. 332, 41 N. W. 409; Vipond v. Townsend, 88 Wis. 
285, 60 N. W. 430; Peterson v. State Bank, 78 Wis. 113, 47 N. W. 368; First Nat. 
Bank v. Larsen, 60 Wis. 206. In the following cases such instruments were held 
to be nonncgotiable, but the question whether the stipulation was enforceable 
was not raised: Garretson v. Purdy, 3 Dak. Ter. 178; Roads v. Webb, 91 Me. 
406, 40 Am. Rep. 128; McCoy v. Green, 83 Mo. 626; Storr v. Wakefield, 71 Mo. 
622; First Nat. Bank v. Marlow, 71 Mo. 618; First Nat. Bank v. Gay, 71 Mo. 627; 
Samstag v. Conley, 64 Mo. 476; First Nat. Bank v. Gay, 63 Mo. 33; Ruck v. 
Harris, 125 Mo. App. 365, 102 S. W. 640; Pace v. Gilbert School, 118 Mo. App. 
369, 93 S. W. 1124; Creasy v. Gray, 88 Mo. App. 454; Clark v. Barnes, 58 Mo. 
App. 667; First Nat. Bank v. Bynum, 84 N. C. 25; Clevenger v. Lewis, 20 Okla. 
837, 95 Pac. 230, 16 L. R. A, (N. S.) 410; American Machinery & Export Co. v. 
Druge Bros., 82 Vt. 476, 74 Atl. 84. In Michigan, a note containing such a provi- 
sion is not negotiable. Strawberry Point Bank v. Lee, 117 Mich. 122, 77 N. W. 
444; Conrad Seipp Brewing Co. v. McKittrick, 86 Mich. 191; Altman v. Fowler, 
70 Mich. 58; Altman v. Rittershoeffer, 68 Mich. 287; Cayuga Nat. Bank v. Purdy, 
56 Mich. 6. But in Wright v. Traver, 73 Mich. 493, it was held that a provision 
in a note carrjang interest at 6 per cent, to pay "ten per cent, attorney fees," is 
in effect the same as 16 per cent, interest, and void. A stipulation "to pay fifteen 
dollars attorney's fees, over and above all taxable costs, should any proceeding 
be instituted to collect," being out of proportion to the amount of the note, is 
void. Bullock v. Taylor, 39 Mich. 137. See also Myer v. Hart, 40 Mich. 517. 
In Morgan v. Edwards, 53 Wis. 599, the note was payable with "all expenses, 
including attorney's fees, incurred in collecting." Held not negotiable, the court 
pointing out that the additional amounts were not payable only upon the contin- 
gency of default in payment at maturity. A note negotiable on its face does not 
become nonnegotiable on account of a stipulation in a mortgage securing the 


Third. The third class of cases mamtam the negotiabiUty of the 
instrument, but regard the stipulation as penal and void. They 
proceed on the ground that the paper is negotiable, because as long as 
current the amount contemplated to be paid is certain, and that after 
that its negotiable office is performed; but that the insertion of such 
provisions tends to encourage litigation, to oppress debtors, and is 
against the policy of the law and void.^^ 

Fourth. The fourth class of cases hold that the stipulation to 
pay the additional amount renders the transaction usurious, and sub- 
jects the instrument to the operation of the statutes against usury .^^ 

§ 62a. Considerations in favor of negotiability. — Such instru- 
ments .should, \VL' think, be upheld as negotiable. They are not like 
contracts to pay money and do some other thing. They are simply 
for the payment of a certain sum of money at a certain time, and the 
additional stipulations as to attorney's fees can never go into effect 
if the terms of the bill or note are complied with. They are therefore 
incidental and ancillary to the main engagement, intended to assure 
its performance, or to compensate for trouble and expense entailed 
by its breach. At maturity, negotiable paper ceases to be negotiable 
in the full commercial sense of the term, as heretofore explained,^^ 
though it still passes from hand to hand by the negotiable forms of 
transfer; and it seems paradoxical to hold that instruments evidently 
framed as bills and notes are not negotiable during their currency, 
because when they cease to be current they contain a stipulation to 
defray the expenses of collection.^ 

same providing for an attorney's fee in the event of foreclosure. Farmer's Nat. 
Bank v. McCall, 25 Oki. GOO, 106 Pac. 866. 

83. Boozer v. Anderson, 42 Ark. 167; Trader v. Chichester, 41 Ark. 242; Over- 
ton V. Mathews, 35 Ark. 147; Witherspx)on v. Musselman, 14 Bush, 214; Garr v. 
Louisville Banking Co., 11 Bush, 182; E.xchange Bank v. Appalachian Land & 
Lumber Co., 128 N. C. 193, 38 S. E. 813; Tinsley v. Hoskins, 111 N. C. 340, 16 
S. E. 174, .32 Am. .St. Rep. 801, citing text; Baird v. Vines, 18 S. D. .52, 99 N. W. 
89; Chandler v. Kennedy, 8 S. D. .56, 65 N. W. 4.39. In Virginia it has been held 
that such a stipulation is a penalty and not enforceable. Fields v. I'^ields, 105 
Va. 714, .54 S. E. 888. The negotiability seems to have been a.s.sumed in Rixoy v. 
Pearre, 89 Va. 117, 15 S. E. 498, and in Ronald v. Bank of Princeton, 90 Va. 813, 
20 S. E. 780, the question of negotiability raised was not distinctly decided. 

84. Merchants' Nat. Bank v. Sevier, 14 Fed. 662; Shelton v. Gill, 11 Ohio, 417; 
State v. Taylor, 10 Ohio, 378. 

86. Dorsey v. Wolff, 142 111. .589, 32 N. E. 495, 34 Am. St. Rep. 99, citing text. 
See anlr, §§ 1, la. 

86. Benjamin's Chahners' Digest, 17; Stapleton v. Louisville Banking Co., 


Such stipulations do not, we tliink, render such instruments 
usurious. The additional amounts are in consideration of addi- 
tional trouble and expense inflicted on the holder, and not excessive 
interest for the loan or forbearance of money5 

If the additional stipulations be regarded as in the nature of 
penalties, and therefore void, they would simply be surplusage, and 
would not impair the negotiability of the paper. And this is the view 
which commends itself, as it seems to us, to judicial favor .^^ Unless 
there be some statute under which such stipulations are permissive, 
it certainly tends to the oppression of debtors to sanction their in- 
corporation in commercial instruments; and they are therefore against 
the policy of the law and void. But when the added stipulation is 
deemed valid, and the bill or note negotiable, such stipulation be- 
comes a part of the acceptor's or indorser's contract,^^ and need not 
be sued for by the attorney but are recoverable by the holder of the 
instrument.''" When the amount of fees is fixed by a certain percent- 

95 Ga. 802, 23 S. E. 81, quoting text; Hunter v. Clarke, 184 111. 158, 56 N. E. 
297, 75 Am. St. Rep. 160; Clifton v. Bank of Aberdeen, 75 Miss. 929, 23 So. 394, 
text cited; First Nat. Bank v. Badham, 86 S. C. 170, 68 S. E. 536, 138 Am. St. 
Rep. 1043; (divided court to the contrary in Smith Sons Gin & Machine Co. v. 
Badham, 81 S. C. 63, 61 S. E. 1031 and Green v. Spires, 71 S. C. 107, 50 S. E. 
554); Tyler v. Walker, 101 Tenn. 306, 47 S. W. 424; Salisbury v. Stewart, 15 Utah, 
308, 49 Pac. 777, 62 Am. St. Rep. 934, citing and approving text. In Sperry v. 
Horr, 23 Iowa, 184, negotiability of the note was maintained, not on the idea that 
the amount was definite, but that the liability was not incurred until maturity 
and was part of the remedy. 

87. Barton v. Farmers' Nat. Bank, 122 111. 352; Moore v. Staser, 6 Ind. App. 
364, 23 N. E. 563, 33 N. E. 665. 

88. Hamilton Gin Co. v. Sinker, 74 Tex. 52, citing the text. See Ward v. 
Cornctt, 91 Va. 676, 22 S. E. 494, case of alleged usury. In Rixey v. Pearre, 
89 Va. 117, 15 S. E. 498 (1892), the court, by Lewis, P., said: "In each of the 
negotiable notes held by the bank, there is a stipulation 'to pay on default of 
payment at maturity 10 per cent, on the face of this note for attorney's fee for 
collection.' This was held by the Circuit Court (of Fauquier county) a penalty, 
and, as such not enforceable, and in this view we concur." To the same effect, 
see Ronald v. Bank of Princeton, 90 Va. 813, 20 S. E. 780 (1894). 

89. Bank v. Ellis, 2 Fed. 44 (accommodation indorser); Hubbard v. Harrison, 
38 Ind. 323; First Nat. Bank v. Canatsey, 34 Ind. 149; Smith v. Muncie Nat. 
Bank, 29 Ind. 158. 

90. Adams v. Addington, 16 Fed. 92, citing the text; Bank v. Ellis, 2 Fed. 44; 
Rylee v. Bank of Statham, 7 Ga. App. 489, 67 S. E. 383; Dorsey v. Wolf, 142 111. 
589, 32 N. E. 495, 34 Am. St. Rep. 99, quoting text; Walker v. Woollen, 54 Ind. 
164; Jones v. Smith, 4 Tex. Civ. App. 353, 26 S. W. 240. See Ware v. City Bank 
59 Ga. 848, that a stipulation in a draft for attorney's fees is a contract between 
the drawer and the acceptor, and not recoverable by a holder. 


age, or certain sum, as in many cases,^^ the objection to negotiability 
of the paper becomes extremely technical and sophistical, if the 
validity of the additional stipulation is supported, and it is only 
when their amount is left undetermined that such objection seems to 
be forcible. The holder, it has been held, must prove the amount 
of the attorney's fees in order to recover them.^^ 

Under Negotiable Instrument statute. — The conflict of authority 
on the question whether a provision for the payment of an attorney's 
fee impairs the negotiability of an instrument containing such a 
clause, has been settled in those states which have adopted the 
Negotiable Instrument law, by the section that "The sum payable 
is a sum certain within the meaning of this act, although it is to be 
paid with costs of collection or an attorney's fee, in case payment 
shall not be made at maturity." ^^ And it has been held, under the 

91. Sperry v. Horr, 32 Iowa, 184, 10 per ront. ; Dietrich v. Hnylie, 23 La. Ann. 
707, 10 per cent.; Overton v. Mathews, 35 Ark. 147, 10 per cent.; Farmers' Nat. 
Bank v. Ilasmussen, 1 Dak. 60, § 10, and cases cited ante, § 62. 

92. Orr v. Sparkman, 120 Ala. 9, 23 So. 829; Lindley v. Sullivan, 133 Ind. 588, 
32 N. E. 738, 33 N. E. .561. Wyant v. Pattorf, 37 Ind. 512. Sec Hopkins v. Halli- 
burton & Parr, 6 Tex. Civ. App. 451, 25 S. W. 1005. But not where judgment is 
procured by default. Alexander v. McDow, 108 Cal. 25, 41 Pac. 24. In Illinois 
recovery cannot be had in same action. Dearlove v. Edwards, Itili HI. 619, 46 
N. E. 1081. Where a promissory note, in addition to j)rincij)al and interest, 
provided for the payment of "reasonable attorney's fees in collecting by suit or 
otherwise," the presiding judge was not authorized to direct a verdict for a certain 
amount as attorney's fees because of the testimony of a number of the bar that 
such amount would be reasonable, although there was no conflicting evidence on 
the subject. Finleys<jn v. International Harvester Co. of America (Ga.), 75 S. E. 
103. Where a note contains an agreement to pay "all legal expenses and attor- 
ney's fees which may be incurre<l in the collection of this note," it is not incumbent 
upon the plaint itT to allege and .show by express proof that an attorney had been 
employed and an agreement had been made to i)ay him, before the court was 
authorized to make an allowance for attorney's fees as having been "incurred" 
by the plaintiff. Conner v. Blodget (Cal. App.), 124 P. 733. A stipulation in a 
note or 10 per cent, attorney's fees, if the note is placed in the hands of an 
attorney for collection, is a stipulation for liquidated damages, and the fees are 
recoverable in an action on the note without any proof that they were incurred. 

First Nat. Bank of Vicksburg v. Mayer, 57 So. 308, 129 La. 981. 

93. Appendix, sec. 2 (5). See Farmers' Nat. Bank v. McCall (Okl.), 106 Pac. 
866; McCormick v. Swem, 36 Utah, 6, 102 Pac. 626; First Nat. Bank v. Miller, 
139 Wis. 126, 120 N. W. 820. A note with a clause "and 10 per cent, attorney's 
fees if collected by attorney, or if suit is brought upon this note," provides for 
payment of attorney's fees only on collection by an attorney after dishonor. 
First Nat. Bank v. Miller, 139 Wis. 126, 120 N. W. 820, 131 Am. St. Rep. 1040. 
Where a note was made payable "with reasonable attorney's fees," a reasonable 
attorney's fee may be •demanded when the note has been placed in the hands of 


statute, that where the amount is left blank in an attorney's fee 
clause, it is tantamount to a promise to pay a reasonable sum as an 
attorney's fee.^^ On the question as to the effect of the statute in 
those states which hold such a stipulation in an instrument to be 
contrary to public policy and void, it has been held that the statute 
does not give validity to such stipulations, but provides only that they 
shall not destroy the negotiable character of instruments in which 
they are incorporated.^" 



§ 63. In the seventh place the instrument must be delivered. — 
Delivery is the final step necessary to perfect the existence of any 
written contract, and therefore as long as a bill or note remains in 
the hands of the drawer or maker it is a nullity ; ^^ and a note, to be 

an attorney for collection though suit has not been brought thereon. Morrison v. 
Ornbaun, 30 Mont. Ill, 75 Pac. 953. 

94. McCormick v. Swem, 36 Utah, 6, 102 Pac. 626. 

95. Miller v. Kyle (Ohio), 97 N. E. 372. See Mackintosh v. Gibbs, 79 N. J. L. 
40, 74 Atl. 708, holding that such a stipulation does not render a note nonnego- 
tiablc. In North Carolina, an additional section was added to the statute, as 
follows: "Nothing in this chapter shall authorize the enforcement of an authoriza- 
tion to confess judgment of a waiver of homestead and personal property exemp- 
tions or a provision to pay counsel fees for collection incorporated in any of the 
instruments mentioned in this chapter; but the mention of such provisions in such 
instruments shall not affect the other terms of such instruments of the nego- 
tiability thereof." Revisal of North Carolina of 1905, sec. 2346. 

96. Bailey v. Taber, 5 Mass. 286; Marvin v. McCullum, 20 Johns. 288; Free- 
man V. Ellison, 37 Mich. 459; Lansing v. Caine, 2 Johns. 300; Woodford v. 
Dorwin, 3 Vt. 82; Ward v. Churn, 18 Gratt. 801; Hopper v. Eiland, 21 Ala. 714; 
Richards v. Darst, 51 111. 141; Roberts v. Bethell, 12 C. B. 778; Cox v. Troy, 
5 B. & Aid. 474; Howe v. Quid, 28 Gratt. 7; Bartlett v. Same, 28 Gratt. 7; 
Devries v. Shumate, 53 Md. 216; Smith v. Foster, 41 N. H. 215; Dexter Sav. 
Bank v. Copeland, 77 Me. 269; McFarland v. Sikes, 54 Conn. 250; Palmer v. 
Poor, 121 Ind. 138, citing the text; Purviance v. Jones, 120 Ind. 164, citing the 
text; Stringer v. Adams, 98 Ind. 539; Morris v. Morton, 14 Nebr. 360, citing 
the text; Mattix v. Leach, 16 Ind. App. 113; Nicely et al. v. Winnebago Nat. 
Bank of Rockford, 111., 18 Ind. App. 30, 47 N. E. 476, citing text; Johnson v. 
Eaton, 51 Kan. 708, 33 Pac. 597; Polhemus v. Prudential Realty Corp., 74 N. J. 
Eq. 570, 67 Atl. 303, citing text; In re Reeve's Estate, 111 Iowa, 260, 82 N. W. 
912, quoting text. An indorsement on a note that it was given in connection with 
a contract for a deed to certain land does not make the note a part of another 

§ 63 DELIVERY 91 

a binding obligation, must be accepted by the payee.^' The con- 
trolling element in determining the delivery of a note is the intention 
of the parties,^^ and a negotiable instrument stolen from the maker 
before it has become effective as an obligation by actual or construc- 
tive delivery cannot be enforced by any subsequent innocent holder .^^ 
And even though it be placed by the drawer or maker in the hands 
of his agent for delivery, it is still undelivered as long as it remains in 
his hands, and may be recalled; and, while there, the payee has no 
right to it, unless it be wrongfully withheld by the agent.^ If the 
agent to whom a note is delivered, to be issued on condition, refuses 
to return it to the party who has executed it upon the failure of that 
condition, such party may restrain him from its negotiation, and 
compel the cancellation of his signature thereon.- If he wrongfully 
delivers the note the maker is not bound, unless it comes to the hands 
of a bona fide holder under the rules entitling him to protection.^ 
It is not necessary to aver the delivery of a bill or note, for the aver- 
ment that a bill was drawn or a note made includes the idea of a 

written instrument, delivery of which must be proved to sustain an action on the 
note. Lachenmaier v. Han.son, 190 F. 773. 

97. O'Moara v. McDermott, 43 Mont. 189, 115 P. 912. 

98. Barber v. McHenry County Hetlge Fence Co., 129 111. App. 45; Enneking 
V. Woebkenberg, SS Minn. 259, 92 X. W. 932; Streissguth v. Kroll, 86 Minn. 325, 
90 N. W. 577. Delivery is, normally, to be in accordance with the purpose and 
intent of the parties to a note; but this is subject to exceptions of which one 
obtains when the departure from the intent of the parties is one of mode only. 
Polhemus v. Prudential Reahy Corp., 74 N. J. 570, 67 Atl. 303. 

99. Salley v. Terrill, 95 Me. 553, 50 Atl. 896, 55 L. R. A. 730, 85 Am. St. Rep. 

1. Thompson on Bills, 90-91; The King v. Lambton, 5 Price, 42S; Byles [*146], 
265; Exlwards on Bills, 186; 1 Parsons on Notes and Bills, 4J^50; De\Ties v. 
Shumate, 53 Md. 216. The delivery of a check by the maker to his own agent for 
delivery to the payee does not constitute delivery to the payee, though the agent 
procures his indorsement upon the check by fraudulently representing it to be a 
voucher. BaTrj- v. Mutual Life Ins. Co. of New York, 211 Mass. 306, 97 N. E. 

2. Devries v. Shumate, 53 Md. 212; Eppert v. Hall, 133 Ind. 418, 31 N. E. 74, 
32 N. E. 713, citing the te.vt; Gross v. Arnold, 177 111. 575, 52 N. E. 867. 

3. Ware v. Smith, 62 Iowa, 159; Mercer County v. Life & Trust Co., 19 C. C. A. 
44, 72 Fed. 623, citing text. Where money, deposited with a banker to be loaned 
by him for the owner on real estate security, was loaned on other kind of security, 
the transaction was unauthorized and such banker was not authorized to receive 
a delivery of the notes as agent of the lender, and the person who deposited the 
money was not entitled to posseasion of the notes as against the receiver in bank- 
ruptcy of the banker. Morris v. Butler, 138 Mo. App. 378, 122 S. W. 377. 


delivery, without which the drawing or making is not complete.'' 
So essential is delivery, that it has been held that where a promissory 
note, the writing of which was unknown to the grantee, lay in the 
grantor's possession, and was found among his papers after death, the 
payee could not claim or sue upon it; ^ and though such a note should 
be found, accompanied with written directions to deliver it to the 
payee, the payee will still have no right of action, unless the directions 
be valid as a testament.'^ 

§ 63a. Constructive delivery. — It is to be observed however 
that delivery may be constructive as well as actual, by manual pass- 
ing of the instrument. A direction to a third person who is in actual 
custody thereof, to hold it su))ject to the payee's or transferee's order; 
or an order to the depositary to deliver it, or a delivery to a third 
person for the payee without condition,^ is sufficient in legal con- 
templation.^ Where the plaintilY's bankers indorsed a note to him 

4. Churchill v. Gardner, 7 T. R. 596; Smith v. McClure, 5 East, 477; Binney 
V. Plumlcy, .5 Vt. 500; Peets v. Bratt, 6 Barb. 662; Chester, etc., R. Co. v. Lickiss, 
72 111. 521; Black v. Duncan, 60 Ind. 522; Lord v. Russell, 64 Conn. 86, 29 Am. 
Rep. 242; Smith v. Thurston, 8 Ind. App. 105, 35 N. E. 520; Bank v. Simmons, 
43 W. Va. 79, 27 S. E. 299; Welch v. Damoron, 47 Mo. App. 221, citing text. 

5. Disher v. Disher, 1 P. Wms. 204, Chitty, Jr., 230. Where a testatrix, three 
days before her death, signed her name to notes payable on demand after her 
demise, in stated amounts, placed the notes with bankbooks and other documents 
of her own in the pocket of a skirt belonging to herself, had the pocket sewn up, 
and intrusted the skirt and its contents as her own to one of the persons named as 
payee in one of the notes for safe-keeping only at night, and with the understand- 
ing, that the whole package was, upon her death, to be given up to the person 
named in her will as executor, there was no delivery of the notes during the life- 
time of the promisor. Mason v. Gardiner, 186 Mass. 515, 71 N. E. 952. 

6. Gough V. Findon, 7 Exch. 48; Gammon Theological Seminary v. Robbins, 
128 Ind. 85, 27 N. E. 341; Taylor v. Harmison, 179 111. 137, 53 N. E. 584. 

7. Gordon v. Adams, 127 111. 225; School District v. Sheidley, 138 Mo. 672, 40 
S. W. 656, 60 Am. St. Rep. 576, citing text. Where the maker of a note had been 
the agent of the payee for many years and had been her agent in handling her 
investments, and, after making the note, retained it among other papers belonging 
to her, and made statements periodically of amounts due her and indorsed pay- 
ments on the note, this is sufficient to show a delivery of the note to the payee. 
Indiana Trust Co. v. Byram, 36 Ind. App. 6, 72 N. E. 670, petition to rehear 
denied, 73 N. E. 1094. 

8. Howe V. Ould, 28 Gratt. 7; Bartlett v. Same, 28 Gratt. 7; Fisher v. Bradford, 
7 Greenl. 28; Richardson v. Lincoln, 5 Mete. (Mass.) 201; Mitchell v. Byrne, 
6 Rich. 171. In Howe, Knox & Co. v. Ould & Carrington, 28 Gratt., it appeared 
that Samuel Strong, the owner of a note executed to him by Samuel Myers, in- 
dorsed it, and deposited it with the First National Bank of Richmond, Va., as 

§ 64 DELIVERY 93 

and put it in an envelope with his papers, at the same time, making 
appropriate entries of the transaction on their books, it was held a 
sufficient deHvery to him; and that a subsequent assignment of the 
bankers could not defeat it.^ 

§ 64. If the party who has signed or indorsed the instrument die 
l)('fore delivery, it is a nullity, and cannot be delivered by his personal 
representative; ^° but if advances had been made on the faith of a de- 
livery, then the promisee or indorsee would be entitled to a delivery.'^ 

It is said by Mr. Chitty, in respect to a bill, that delivery (by the 
acceptor) is not essential to vest the legal interest in the payee. ^^ 
But the doctrine sustained by the authorities goes only to the extent 
that if the drawee actually accepts the bill, and improperly detains 

collateral for a loan obtained from the bank by Hetz, Youngaling & Byer. Strong 
Bold the note to Ould, and gave him an order on the bank for it, who at once 
presented the order at the bank, but was informed that the president was out of 
town. A few days afterward the president informed him that the debt for which 
the note was pledged was nearly paid, and that he would deliver him the note 
but for the fact that an attachment had been i.ssued against it — of the attachment, 
which antedated the sale of the note, Ould & Carrington had no notice. It was 
hold that they were entitled to it — were not affected by the attachment of which 
they had no notice at time of purchase, and that the constructive delivery of the 
note was sufficient, (lanunon Theological Seminary v. Robbins, 128 Ind. 85, 
•27 N. E. 341; Welch v. Dameron, 47 Mo. App. 221, citing text. 

9. Williams v. Gait, 65 111. 172. When a banker executed a note payable by 
hinwelf in the presence and with the consent of the payee, and kept it thereafter 
for her lus her banker, for safe-keeping, and for the collection of collaterals and 
the crediting of the proceeds thereof u[X)n the note, this constituted a constructive 
delivery. In rr Reeve's Estate, 111 la. 2G0, 82 N. W. 912. 

10. Clark V. Boyd, 2 Ohio, 50; Clark v. Sigourney, 17 Conn. 511; Bromage v. 
Lloyd, 1 E.xch. 32; Byles 1*56], 242; Drum v. Benton, 13 App. D. C 245. When 
the maker places the note in the hands of a third person merely for delivery to 
the payee, such third person is the agent of the maker, and not of the payee. And 
if the maker dies before delivery by the agent, the agent's authority is thereby 
revoked, and a subsequent delivery by him is ineffectual to create a liability. 
Jones v. Jone.s, 101 Me. 447, 64 Atl. 815, 115 Am. St. Rep. 328. But in Rowan v. 
Chenoweth, 49 W. Va. 2S7, 38 S. E. 544, 87 Am. St. Rep. 790, recognizing the rule 
that delivery of a promissory note is indispensable to its efficacy, and, if not de- 
livered in the lifetime of its maker, it cannot be delivered after his death, the 
court said that delivery may be actual or constructive, and that if it is clear that 
the maker of the note intended it to be a finished note, and binding on him, with- 
out further act on his part, it will so operate, though not actually delivered in his 

11. Perr>' v. Crammond, 1 Wash. C. C. 100, 1 Parsons on Notes and Bills, 49. 

12. Chitty on Bills 1*172], 198 


it in his hands, an averment that the bill was accepted is sufficient, 
without averment of a delivery by the acceptor. ^^ 

§ 65. Whenever a bill or note is found in the hands of the payee, 
it will be presumed that it was delivered to him,^* and that the 
delivery took place on the day of its date, if it be dated, ^^ and, at any 
rate, before the day of its maturity.^*' But the presumption both as to 
the fact and the time of delivery may be rebutted. ^^ 

As a bill or note takes effect only by delivery, so it takes effect only 
on delivery; and if this be subsequent to its date, it will be binding 
only from that day.^^ But still, when delivered, if it bear an anterior 
date, and be payable at some future day from date, the time will be 
computed according to its terms, and therefore by relation from its 
date; for it is competent for the parties to frame their contracts to 
suit themselves.'^ And it will be proper to describe it as drawn on the 
day it bears date.-" 

13. Smith V. McClure, 5 Eaat, 476; Story on Bills, § 203, note 2; Thompson on 
Bills, 90. 

14. Lachcnmaier v. Hanson, 196 Fed. 773; Pastene v. Pardini, 135 Cal. 431, 
67 Pac. 861; Griswold v. Davis, 31 Vt. 390; Woodford v. Dorwin, 3 Vt. 82; Garri- 
gus, Admr. v. The Home Frontier & Foreign Missionary Society, 3 Ind. App. 91, 
28 N. E. .1009, 50 Am. St. Rep. 262; Knapstein v. Tinnette, 156 111. 322, 40 N. E. 
947. Winfrey v. Ragan, 136 Mo. App. 250, 117 S. W. 83; Candy v. Bissell, 72 
Nebr. 356, 100 N. W. 803. See § 812. The possession of a note by one claiming 
to be the real and intended payee, but alleged to have been made payable to 
another by mistake, affords no basis for the inference that the note was fully 
executed by delivery. Digan v. Mandel, 167 Ind. 586, 79 N. E. 899, the court 
saying: "Delivery involves both an act and an intention, and where the contest 
is waged with respect to the act and puqwse necessary to create the article, and 
give it existence and legal force, there can be no presumption of law or foundation 
for an inference of fact in favor of one not in terms a party to the disputed instru- 
ment. It was incumbent on appellee to prove delivery, or to prove such facts as 
warranted the inference of dehvery by the trial court." 

15. Cranston v. Coss, 107 Mass. 439; Sinclair v. Baggaley, 4 M. «fe W. 312; 
Anderson v. Weston, 6 Bing. N. C. 296; Emery v. Vinall, 26 Me. 295. 

16. ChurchiU v. Gardiner, 7 T. R. 596; Smith v. McClure, 5 East, 477; Exchange 
Bank v. Veirs, 3 Cal. App. 71, 84 Pac. 455, citing text; Binney v. Plumley, 5 Vt. 
500. See chapter XXI, on transfer by Indorsement, § 6. 

17. Lachenmaier v. Hanson, 196 Fed. 773; Candy v. Bissell's Estate, 81 Nebr. 
102, 117 N. W. 349, 115 N. W. 571; Woodford v. Dorwin, 3 Vt. 82; Scaife v. Byrd, 
39 Ark. 568; Wickhizer et al. v. Bohn, 22 Ind. App. 1, 53 N. E. 238. 

18. Lovejoy v. Whipple, 18 Vt. 379. 

19. Powell V. Waters, 8 Cow. 669; Bumpass v. Timms, 3 Sneed, 459; Snaith 
V. Mingay, 1 Maule & S. 87; Barker v. Sterne, 9 Exch. 684. 

20. Snaith v. Mingay, 1 Maule & S. 89. 

§§ 66, 67 bELIVERY 95 

Under Negotiable Instrument statute. — Following the rule of the 
general law, the statute declares a contract on a negotiable instrument 
incomplete until delivery.^i An instrument in the form of a bill of 
exchange payable to the order of the drawer does not come into 
existence as a bill of exchange until it is delivered as well as indorsed 
by the payee,-- but the production of an instrument raises the pre- 
sumption of a valid and intentional delivery by the maker. -^ 

§ 66. If the bill or note bear no date, the time must be computed 
from its delivery; and if the day of actual delivery cannot be proved, 
it will be computed from the earliest day on which it appears to have 
been in the hands of the payee or any holder.-^ It is not necessary to 
aver a date to the bill or note, but it is sufficient to aver that it was 
drawn or made a certain day.^^ 

§ 67. Delivery to a father of an order for an amount due his minor 
son is sufficient delivery in law; -* and so delivery to a trustee is 
sufficient as delivery to the cestui que trust; -^ and delivery may be 
made to one person for another.^ Delivery by one of two joint makers 
will be conclusively presumed to be the act of both.-* 

It is essential to delivery that the minds of both parties should 
assent, in order to bind them; and if, through inattention, infirmity, 
or otherwise, one does not assent, the act of the other is nugatory.^" 

21. Appendix, sec. IG. Massachusetts Nat. Bank v. Snow, 187 Maas. 159, 72 
N. E. 959; Viets v. Silver, 15 N. D. 51, 106 S. W. 35. 

22. Stouffer v. Curtis, 198 560, 85 N. E. 180. 

23. Madden v. Gaston, 121 N. Y. S. 951, 137 App. Div. 294 (a.s to checks). 

24. Clark v. Sigourney, 17 Conn. 511; Richardson v. Lincoln, 5 Mete. (Mass.) 
201 ; Woodford v. Don\in, 3 Vt. 82. 

25. De Lu Coutier v. Bellamy, 2 Show. 422 (1683); Hague v. French, 3 Bros. 
& P. 173; Giles v. Bourne, 6 Maule & S. 73. 

26. Mason v. Hyde, 41 Vt. 432. See also Enneking v. Woebkenberg, 88 Minn. 
259, 92 N. W. 932, holding that it was a sufficient deHvery when the maker left the 
note with the father of the payee, when he understood that he had parted with all 
interest therein. 

27. Tucker v. Bradley, 33 Vt. 325. 

28. Elliott V. Deason, 64 Ga. 63. Delivery to the husband for the wife has been 
hold insufficient. ^^' right v. Smith, 81 Va. 777. A delivery made to the agent 
of the person is equivalent in law to the principal. See Callahan v. Crow, 91 
Hun, 346, 36 N. Y. Supp. 225. Compare Giselman v. Starr, 106 Cal. 651, 40 
Pac. 8. 

29. Beman v. Wessels, 53 Mich. 549; Carter v. Moulton, 51 Kan. 9, 32 Pac. 
633, 37 Am. St. Rep. 2.59. 

30. In re Reeve's Estate, 111 La. 260, 82 N. W. 912, quoting text. Where 



Therefore, leaving a check on the desk of a clerk,^' or the counter of 
a bank,^2 without the knowledge of such clerk or the bank otiicer, is 
not delivery. Where papers were taken up in the presence of the 
party sought to be charged, and placed in the safe of a thirtl pers(m, 
it was held no delivery on his part, as between the immediate parties, 
when he had done or said nothing to indicate an intention to deliver.'^ 
Where notes were executed an<l left with the payee's agent, who 
objected only to their form, but retained them, agreeing to accept 
them, if the form could not be changed, and it was not, it was held to 
be sufficient delivery.'"'' Placing lulls or notes, signed or indorsed, in 
the custody of the postman, addressed to the payee or indorsee— that 
being the course of business between the parti(>s— has been held, in 
England, a sufficient delivery; ^•' and so depositing them in the post- 
office, with the assent of the payee or indorsee, is considered sufficient 
in the United States.^" And if a bill or note so deposited be lost on 

notes, which had been executed before an order was signed for goods, were laid 
on the counter while the maker went lo wait on a customer, and the agent of the 
seUer took uj) the notes and pupcru and left the store, there wius no proper delivery 
of tlie notes. Sheffer v. Fleischer, 158 Mich. '270, 122 N. W. 543. 

31. Kinney v. Ford, 52 Barb. 194. 

32. Chicopce Bank v. Philadeli)hia Bank, 8 Wall. 641. 

33. Stokes v. Anderson, 118 Ind. 533. 

34. Bodley v. Higgin.s, 73 111. 375. 

35. Rex V. Lambton, 5 Price, 428. 

36. Kirkman v. Bank of America, 2 Coldw. 397; Canterbun,- v. Bank of 
Sparta, 91 Wis. 53, G4 N. W. 311, 51 Am. St. Rep. 870. If a cheek has been sent 
by mail, but has never been received by the payee, it remained the property of 
the sender. Garthwaite v. Bank of Tulare, 134 Cal. 237, G() Pac. 32G. Where 
a debtor sends by mail a check to pay a debt, the title to the check remains in 
the sender until it is received by the creditor, unless the creditor instructs the 
debtor to send a check by mail in settlement of the debt. In the latter case, the 
title to the check vests in the creditor or payee when the check is placed in the 
mail according to his instructions. Watt-Harley-Holmes Hardware Co. v. Day, 
1 Ga. App. G46, 57 S. E. 1033. Where a person agrees to accept a note signed by 
two persons in his own state and by one person in another state, and the note is 
signed by the two who send it to the third person for signature, the note was 
delivered in another state when such third person signed the note and deposited 
it in the post-oflSce addressed direct to the payee. Loud v. Collins, 12 Cal. App. 
786, 108 Pac. 880, citing text. Where a note, blank as to date of payment, waa 
sent by mail, and returned by payee who stated that it could not be accepted 
in that form, and the maker sent it again with a letter stating that he could not 
tell when he would be able to pay it and asking the payee to hold it, and he would 
pay it as soon as he was able, the note was not finally delivered until it was sent 
the second time with the letter, and the note and letter formed a single transaction. 
Glass v. Adone, 39 Tex. Civ. App. 21, 86 S. W. 798. 

§§ 67a, 68 DELIVERY 97 

the way, and the creditor obtain a duplicate, and cause it to be de- 
manded and protested, he may recover." The vendor of negotiable 
paper has the right of stoppage in transitu to the same extent as the 
vendor of other species of personal property; and the right to the 
remedy applies not only as against the vendee, but as well against a 
creditor of the vendee who ha.s made a loan upon the promise of the 
vendee to transfer the paper to him on its arrival.^ 

§ 67a. One who becomes a party to a note after delivery, and the 
consideration has passed between the original parties, incurs no lia- 
bility to the payee unless there be a new consideration and a re- 
delivery of the note; and merely signing the note in the presence of 
the payee does not amount to a redelivery.^^ 

§ 68. Escrows.— A l)ill or note, as well as a deed, may be de- 
livered as an escrow— that is, delivered to a third party (but not to 
the payee), ■^ to hold until a certain event happens, or certain condi- 
tions are complied with — and then the liability of the party com- 
mences as soon as the event happens or tlu? conditions are fulfilled, 
without actual delivery by the depositary to the promisee,"*^ but 

37. Kirkman v. Bank of .\inerica, 2 Coldw. 397. 

38. Mull.T V. Pondir, 55 N. V. ."125. 

39. WillianiH v. Williams, 07 Mo. Otil. To same effect, see Bri(y?9 v. Downing, 
48 Iowa, 550; Hrant v. Bamett tt al., 10 Ind. App. 653, 38 N. E. 441; Messenner 
V. Vaughan, 45 Mo. App. 15. But when it was the original understanding that 
the further security would be given, if such additional security is given, pursuant 
to the original agreement, then it relates back to the inception of the first contract; 
and in such cases no new consideration is required. Montgomery County v. 
Auchley, 92 Mo. 120, 4 S. \V. 425. 

40. Clanin v. Esterly Harv. Mach. Co., 118 Ind. 374; Murray et al. v. W. W. 
Kimball Co., 10 Ind. Ai)p. 184, 37 X. K. 734; Garner v. File et al., 93 Ala. 405, 
9 So. 307, citing text. A delivery of a note to the payee's attorney is a complete 
deUvery. Schultz v. Kosbab, 125 Wis. 157, 103 N. W. 237. The burden is upon 
the plaintiff to show that a note was left with a third person to be delivered to the 
payee upon the happening of a contingency. Jones v. Jones, 101 Me. 447, 64 
Atl. 815. In Nichols it Shepard Co. v. First Xat. Bunk, 6 N. Dak. 404, 71 N. W. 
135, it was held that where promissorj' notes were placed by the parties thereto 
in the hands of a third party, with instructions not to deliver the same until the 
maker so directed, the transaction did not constitute an escrow. The notes still 
remained in the control of the maker. There was no deUvery in law, and no title 
to the notes vested in the payee. 

41. Bradbur>' v. Davenport, 120 Cal. 152, 52 Pac. 301; Witmer Bros. v. Weid, 
108 Cal. 569, 41 Pac. 491; Couch v. Meeker, 2 Conn. 302; Smith v. Goodrich, 
167 111. 46, 47 N. E. 310; Taylor v. Thomas, 13 Kan. 217; Mi.ssouri Pac. R. Co. 
V. Atkinson, 17 Mo. App. 492, citing the te.xt; Parker v. Young, 73 N. J. L. 774, 



delivery by such third party contrary to agreement would not con- 
stitute a delivery.''^ And it matters not that the actual delivery is 
not designed to take place until after the death of the promisor; the 
instrument, whether negotiable or otherwise, is nevertheless valid. ""^ 
But there is this distinction between negotiable and sealed instru- 
ments: If the custodian of the former betrays his trust, and passes 
off the negotiable instrument to a bona fide holder before maturity, 
and without notice, all parties are bound; but if the instrument be 
sealed, the rule is otherwise.'*'' 

65 Atl. 194 (as to waiver of the condition of a check being held in escrow) ; Ketter- 
son V. Inscho, 55 Tex. Civ. App. 150, 118 S. W. 626, citing text; Alexander v. 
Wilkes, 11 Lea (Tenn.), 221; Glenn v. Hill, 11 Wash. 541, 40 Pac. 141, citing and 
approving text; Lehigh Coal & Iron Co. v. West Superior Iron & Steel Co., 91 Wis. 
221, 64 N. W. 346; 1 Parsons on Notes and Bills, .")1; and see chapter on Bona 
Fide Holder, §§ 855, 856. Where a note made for th(! price of stock and 
the certificates of .stock were placed in escrow under an agreement that the stock 
should be delivered to the maker of the note if he paid the note witliin a year, 
but no provision was made for the disposition of the stock or the note in default 
of payment, the payee of the note cannot sue thereon when the stock and note 
are still in the hands the escrow of holder; the payee's remedy would be for a 
breach of contract. Gray v. Baron (Ariz. ), 108 Pac. 229. When the maker of 
a check has deposited it in escrow, the depositary is bound to account to the payee 
for his property, and is entitled to prove any facts which would defeat the maker's 
claim thereto. Brockway v. Reynolds, 77 Nebr. 225, 109 N. W. 154. When a 
note, whose validity depends upon the delivery, is left with a third person to be 
delivered to the payee, on the happening of a contingency, the first delivery is 
complete, and irrevocable by death or otherwise. Jones v. Jones, 101 Me. 447, 
64 Atl. 815, 115 Am. St. Rep. 328. If a promissory note when executed is by 
agreement of the parties delivered to a third person, to be by him delivered to 
the payee upon the performance of a condition precedent, and the condition is 
performed after the death of the maker of the note, the delivery becomes complete 
by the performance of the condition. Gandy v. Bissell, 72 Nebr. 356, 100 N. W. 
803, reversing on rehearing 5 Nebr. (Unof .) 184, 97 N. W. 632. 

42. Settles v. Moore, 149 Mo. App. 724, 129 S. W. 455, and when the cashier of 
a bank held the note as cashier under the escrow agreement, the bank is liable. 
Brown v. Citizens' State Bank, 17 Idaho, 716, 107 Pac. 405. Compare § 855. 

43. Giddings v. Giddings, 51 Vt. 227; Belden v. Carter, 4 Day, 66; Glenn v. 
Hill, 11 Wash. 541, 40 Pac. 141, citing and approving text; Wood v. Flanery, 89 
Mo. App. 632, citing text. If the maker of a note delivered it to a third person, to 
be held by him and delivered to the payee on condition that the maker died with- 
out recaUing it, the happening of the condition left the holder with authority 
to deliver it to the payee and thereby to give him a good title. But if such person 
was simply to take the note into his custody, and to hold it as the servant of the 
maker, under his orders, it could not be effectually delivered to the payee after 
the death of the maker. Daggett v. Simonds, 173 Mass. 340, 53 N. E. 907, 46 L. 
R. A. 332. 

44. Hutchinson v. Brown, 19 D. C. 136; Provident Trust Co. v. Mercer County, 

§ 68a DELIVERY 99 

§ 68a. Can delivery to payee be upon condition precedent? — It 
has been suid that a bill or note cannot be shown to have been de- 
livered to the promisee as an escrow, for the evidence would be re- 
pugnant to the act.^^ These questions are elsewhere more fully con- 
sidered.^^ It has been said however by the Court of Appeals of New 
York, that "instruments not under seal may be delivered to the one 
to whom on their face they are made payable, or who by their terms 
is entitled to some interest or benefit under them, upon conditions, 
the observance of which is essential to their validity. And the annex- 
ing of such conditions to the deHvery is not an oral contradiction of 
the written obligation, though negotiable as between the parties to 
it, or others having notice. It needs a delivery to make the obligation 
operative at all, and the effect of the delivery and the extent of the 
operation of the instrument may be limited by the conditions \Nith 
which the delivery is made." *'' This view is now taken by the 

170 U. S. 607, 18 Sup. Ct. Rep. 788; Fearing v. Clark, 16 Gray, 74; Long Island 
L. & T. Co. V. Columbus R. Co., 05 Fed. 4.58; Barson v. Huntington, 21 Mich. 
415; Galvin v. Lyfers, 22 Ind. App. 43, .52 N. E. 96; North Atchi.son Bank v. Gay, 
114 Mo. 203, 21 S. W. 479; Joyce v. Cockrill, 35 C. C. A. 38, 92 Fed. 838. Com- 
pare § 855. 

45. 1 Parsons on Notes and Bills, 51; Scott v. State Bank, 9 Ark. 36; Ma8.s- 
man v. HoLschor, 49 Mo. 87; Badcock v. Steadman, 1 Root (Conn.), 87; Jones 
V. Shaw, 67 Mo. 667. S<'(' post, §§ 79, 81. 

46. See chapter XX\I, on Rights of Bona Fide Holder or Purchaser, §855. 
Hcnshaw v. Dutton, 59 .Mo. 139. 

47. Benton v. Martin, 52 N. Y. 574, Folger, J.; Belleville Bank v. Borncman, 
124 111. 205. In .Merchant.s' Exch. Bank v. Luckow, 37 Minn. 542, Gilfillan, J., 
said: "It was held in Wcstman v. Krumwcide, 30 Minn. 314, and Skaaraas v. 
P'innegan, 31 Minn. 4S, that in the ca^c of an in.strument not under seal it is 
C()m{)etent to .show hy i)ar(jl that notwith.standing it.s delivery, it was intended by 
the parties that it .should become operative a.s a contract only upon the happening 
of a future contingent event, such as that it should be first executed by .some other 
person. It is claimed that the rule ought not to apply to negotiable paper, but we 
can see no reason why, as between the original partii>s, it should not apply to such 
in.struments, as well as any other, nor why a tran.sferee with notice, or without 
valuable consideration, or after maturity, should not take such negotiable paper 
subject to that defense as well as to any other." The cases cited above appear 
to have been instances of deliver)' to the payee himself, or to his agent. Where 
the deliver)' is made by a surety to his principal upon conditions to be observed 
before the final promulgation of the pap>er, the Uabilities of the parties, as between 
themselves, present a different question, some authorities contending that the 
payee taking such paper without notice of the condition is not affected thereby, 
and others maintaining that where the paper is nonnegotiable, or still in the hands 
of an original party, the surety may avail himself of the violation or nonobserv- 


Supreme Court of the United States."* And it is now generally luld 
that a note may be delivered to the payee to take effect only upon a 

ance of the condition. That the payee should take the paper free from any secret 
or private understanding exi.sting between i)artic.s occupyinK the relations of 
principal and surety, seems to us the better doctrine. It is well presenteil by 
Mclver, J., in an ojjinion delivered in the of Fowler v. Allen (S. C), 10 S. K. 
947, where, after stating the facts, he said: "As to the second (juestion, while it is 
not to be denied that there is some conflict in the cases elsewhere, we think the 
decided weight of authority as well Jus of argument, is in favor of the proi>osition 
that where on(» signs a negotiable note, perfect on its face, lus surety for another 
upon the condition known only to the principal that it is not to be delivere<l to 
the payee until sonietliing else is done, the surety will be liable, even if .such am- 
dition be not complied with, unless notice of such condition is brought home to the 
payee. This proposition does not rest alone upon the peculiar character of n«'- 
gotiable paper, but u|)on the well-.scttled principle that where one of two innocent 
persons must suffer, tlie .shoukl fall upon him who put it in the iK)wer of a 
third person to sucli loss, as well lus upon the principle that where an agent 
is clothed with ajjparent authority to do an act, he may bind his principal within 
the limits of that authority, whatever m.ay have been his private instructions. 
Here the principal debtor, after .signing the notes, takes them to the defendant 
for the of procuring her signature as his surety, in accordance with the 
agreement made by him with the plainlifi's; and, when he delivers them projjcrly 
signed, surely the payees cannot be afTected by any private instructions which 
the surety may have given to his principal, unless the same were communicated 
to the payees. The .surety by signing the notes complete in form, and placing 
them in the hands of her principal to be delivennl to the payees, even though ujion 
a condition, has plac-ed it in the jwwer c^f her principal to dec(>ive the payees; 
and if loss ensues it must fall upon the one who contributed to that loss, rathi^r 
than upon the innocent payees, who were left in ignorance of the conditions upon 
which the notes were signed. The principal debtor was the agent of the surety, 
and not of the creditor; and if he has done an act, for the doing of which he was 
clothed with apparent authority, even though it may have been done in violation 
of his private instructions, the person who invested him with such apparent 
authority, must take the consequences." See also Jordan v. Jordan, 10 Lea, 124; 
Callahan v. Crow, 91 Hun, 346, 36 N. Y. Supp. 225. See also authorities cited 
in note 92 to § 81a; Wickhizer et al. v. Bolin, 22 Ind. App. 1, 53 N. E. 238. And 
the motive of the maker of a note in delivering the same is immaterial in an ac- 
tion against the sureties thereon. Weis v. Morris Bros., 102 Iowa, 327, 71 
N. W. 208. See also Juilliard v. Chaffee, 92 N. Y. 529; Reynolds v. Robinson, 
110 N. Y. 654, 18 N. E. 127; McFraland v. Sikes, 54 Conn. 250, 7 Atl. 408, 1 
Am. St. Rep. 111. 

48. In Burke v. Dulaney, 153 U. S. 228 (1893), 14 Sup. Ct. Rep. 816, the court 
held that in an action by the payee against the maker of a note evidence is ad- 
missible to show a parol agreement between them, and at the time of making the 
note that it should not become operative as a note until the maker could examine 
the property (which consisted of a group of mines) for which the note was to be 
given, and determine whether he would take them. Harlan, J., cited Ware v. 
Allen, 128 U. S. 595, 9 Sup. Ct. Rep. 174; Pym v. Campbell, 6 El. & Bl. 370; 

§ 68a DELIVERY 101 

condition precedent. ^^ And so, where a person signed a note under an 
express agreement that it was not to become obligatory until certain 
other persons had signed it, and the payee received it with this undcr- 

Davis V. Jones, 17 C. B. (N. S.) 625; Wilson v. Powers, 131 Mass. 539; Pawling 
V. I'nitod States, 4 Cranch, 219, and approvinR Benton v. Martin, 52 N. Y. 574. 
This decision goes to the consideration of the instrument, for unless the property 
was purchased it was without valuable con.sideration, the option to purchase it 
not having been the value given for the note. It is therefore in accordance with 
the views set forth in § Kla. 

49. Purcell v. Armour Packing Co., 4 Ga. .\pp. 2.53, 61 S. E. 13.S; Hunter v. 
First Xat. Bank, 172 Ind. 62, .S7 X. K. I'.U; SlreLssguth v. Kroll, SO Minn. 325, 
9<) .\. \V. 577; Xiblock v. Si)rague, 93 X. E. 1105, 200 N. Y. 390, reversing judg- 
ni.nt lis X. Y. 1127, 134 App. Div. 910; Smith v. Dotterweich, 93 X. E. 985, 
2fXJ X. Y. 299, 33 L. H. A. (X. S.) 892, reversing judgment 116 N. Y. 896, 132 
App. Div. 489; Stoughton v. Chu Kong, 130 X. Y. S. 228; Xewgrass v. Shulhof, 
128 X. Y. S. m4; Shulman v. Damico, 123 X. Y. S. 61, KiS App. Div. 191. A<jr>' note may, in this state, b«' ddiventl to the payw in escrow, to become 
efTcctive if certiiin conditions are fuliilh-*!; otherwise to remain ineffective, and 
the fact that the escnjw holder wjis the agent of the maker in other mutters does 
not preclude hw being the dejKJsitarj' of the note in escrow, provided he received 
it not in his cajjacity as agent, but in his individujd capjicity. St. Paul's Episcopal 
Church V. Fields, 81 Conn. 670, 72 Atl. 145. In the case of delivery to an agent 
of the payee, the court said that the better authority is to the efifcct that when 
the rights of no thinl parties inter\ene, and there Ls nothing inconsistent with 
the agent's duty to his principal in holding the pajjcr subject to the conditions 
agree<l u|M)n when it wxs execute<l, the writing may be delivered to the agent of 
the ailvers<> |)arty to be held by him until he receives instructions to deliver it 
to his principal. This was a case of a purchjise of machinery and delivery of a 
note to the agent to be held by him until the machinery could be teste*!, and the 
court held that the holder was acting as the agent of the purchaser in holding the 
note. Case Threshing Mach. Co. v. Barnes, 133 Ky. 321, 117 S. W. 418. Where 
a note was given on an account, and the maker siiid that there must be an ad- 
justment of the account as to over-charges before the note was paid, but the pers<jn 
taking the note .statcnl that he ha4l no authority liS to that, there was no condition 
attache<l to the deliver*- of the note. Conditions !us to deliver*' may be shown, but 
not conditions which change or modify the character of the obligation. Pratt &. 
Whitney Co. v. American Pneumatic Tool Co., 63 X. Y. S. 1062, 50 App. Div. 
369, aiFirmed 106 X. Y. 588, 59 X. E. 1129. The maker of a promissory note, 
deliven-d on condition precedent to the payee, may recover the note in trover 
from the payee, where there has been a bn«ach of condition by the latter; the fact 
that the pay«>e, in violation of the condition has indorsotl the note to an innocent 
holder for value do<>s not defeat the maker's cause of action as the unauthorized 
transfer, being a conversion, cannot be a defense to a suit in trover. Thompson 
V. Carter, 6 Ga. App. 604, 65 S. E. 599. Performance of a condition precedent 
may be waived or the party for whose benefit it operates may be estopped from 
complaining of its nonperformance. Heitman v. Commercial Bank, 6 Ga. App. 
584, 65 S. E. 590. 


standing and without procuring such other persons to sign it, the 
person signing it is not hable.^ But, of course, such an agreement 
between the parties to a note relating to its conditional delivery could 
not be available as against an indorsee in good faith. ^^ 

Under Negotiable Instrument statute. — The conflict of authority on 
the question whether a bill or note can be shown to have been de- 
livered upon a condition precedent, is settled in those states which 
have adopted the statute,^^ whereunder the rule is recognized that a 
person may manually deliver an instrument, though it be in the form 
of commercial paper, to another, on its face containing a binding 
obligation in -prcesenti of such person to such other, with a contem- 
poraneous verbal agreement that it shall not take effect until the 
happening of some specified event, and that the paper as between the 

50. Hakes v. Russ, 175 Fed. 751; Young v. Hayes (Mass.), 99 N. E. 327; In- 
ternational Bank v. Enderle, 133 Mo. App. 222, 113 S. W. 262; Seattle v. L. H. 
Griffith Realty, etc., Co., 28 Wash. 605, 68 Pac. 1036. See as to parol evi- 
dence, -post, § 81a. A surety who signs an unconditional promise is not dis- 
charged from liabiUty thereon by reason of any expectation, reliance or con- 
dition, unless notice thereof be given to the promisee; or in other words, that 
the contract stands as expressed in the writing in the absence of conditions which 
are known to the recipient of the promise. In this case, the fact that the surety 
signed on condition that another surety would be obtained was not known to 
the payee. Joyce v. Auten, 179 U. S. 591, 21 S. Ct. 227, 45 L. Ed. 332. The 
fact that a surety signed the note upon an agreement that it should be signed by 
another person also as surety, is available as a defense. Hunter v. First Nat. 
Bank, 172 Ind. 62, 87 N. E. 734; Smith v. Bales (Ky.), 99 S. W. 672; That it 
should not be delivered until another had signed it. See also Bank of Benson v. 
Jones, 147 N. C. 419, 61 N. E. 193, 16 L. R. A. (N. S.) 343. In Smith v. Bales 
(Ky.), 99 S. W. 672, it was so held under an agreement that the note should not be 
delivered until another had signed it. But in Dils v. Bank of Pikeville, 109 Ky. 
757, 60 S. W. 715, it was held that a contemporaneous condition in parol, on de- 
livery by a surety, that an additional name would be secured as co-indorser, 
could not operate to vary the terms of the contract, though it might be available 
upon proper allegations of facts showing damage as a basis for a counter- 

51. Gilette v. Hodge, 170 Fed. 313; Norris v. Merchants' Nat. Bank, 2 Ala. 
App. 434, 57 So. 71. Where there was a collateral agreement between the maker 
of a promissory note and a third person, on failure of which the payee promised 
that the note should be returned, the maker of the note has no defense to the note 
in the hands of a purchaser notwithstanding his full knowledge of the equities 
between the parties to the note, when the default of the maker, without any fault 
on the part of the third person, occasioned the failure of performance of the agree- 
ment between the maker of the note and such third person. Case v. Beyer, 142 
Wis. 496, 125 N. W. 947. 

62. Appendix, sec. 16. 

§ 69 DELIVERY 103 

parties will have no validity as a binding contract till the condition 
shall have been satisfied.^' 

§ 69. Bills and notes made on Sunday. — By the common law, 
there is no interdiction of secular business being conducted on Sun- 
day, and, unless restrained by statute, a party may draw, make, in- 
dorse, or accept bills and notes on Sunday, and their acts will be as 
valid as if done on any other day.^^ By statute however in many of 

53. Hodge v. Smith, 130 Wis. 326, 110 N. W. 192. In that case it was held 
that where some of the makers of a note were induced to sign the note upon the 
understanding that, although it remained in the hands of the payee to obtain 
other signatures, it was not to be dehvered so as to take effect until signed by 
other respon.sible signers, and it has not in fact been so signed in good faith, then 
it hjus no effect or existence as a promissor>- note a.s against any of the makers. 
See als<3 Hunk of Cartersville v. Gunter (Ala. .A.pp.), oS So. 757; Citizens' State 
Bank of Lunkin v. Garceau (M. D.), 134 N. W. 882; English v. Schlesinger, 105 
N. Y. S. 989, 55 Misc. 584; Morris-Miller Co. v. Von Prossentin, 63 Wash. 74, 
114 Pac. 912 (as to a check); Swanke v. Herdemann, 138 Wis. 654, 120 N. W. 414. 
In Zimbleman v. Finnegan, 141 la. 358, 1 18 N. W. 312, the court said that if there 
was an understanding b<'twe<'n the parties to a note that it was not to become 
binding on the maker until others had signe*! it, .such understanding would have 
to be based on a mutual agreement between them, and an understanding bj' either, 
not ba.sed on an agreement, would not bind the other. \N'here defendant and 
B. made a note for the price of corporate stock, with an understanding that neither 
the sale nor the note should be effective unless M. should sign the note and 
take part of the stock, the payee could not recover from defendant unless 
M. was willing to sign the note and was prevented from doing so by de- 
fendant's wrongful act. Key v. Usher (Ky.), 99 S. W. 324. Under this rule, it 
has been held, in an action on a note given for the price of corporate stock, that 
evidence was competent to show that it was delivered to the payee upon the con- 
dition that if the maker paid interest on the sum for 18 months, the payee was 
to renew the notes, and if the maker did not want the stock he might elect to 
terminate the purchase and have the notes canceled, and that the evidence showed 
that it was not intended that the note should be a present binding agreement. 
Paulson V. Boyd, 137 Wis. 241, 118 \. W. 841, to which there were three dissents, 
mainly on the ground that the evidence showed that the note was to take effect 
on delivery, and that the agreement was with reference to a contingency which 
might enable the payor to discharge his obligation other%vise than according to 
its tenor. In the above case it was held further that where a bank held a note 
with notice of an arrangement between the parties to the note that it should not 
become a completed contract in prccsenti but was to take effect only upon con- 
dition, a new bank which took a transfer of the assets of such holding bank under 
a condition that the new bank "assume the liabilities of the private bank * * * 
in consideration of the transfer" of its assets to the new bank, the new bank held 
such note subject to the defense that its delivery was conditional. 

64. Hooks V. State, 58 Fla. 57, 50 So. 586; Bigbie v. Levy, 1 Cromp. & J. 180, 


the States of the United States, no contract can be entered into on 
Sunday, or secular business legally conducted; bills and notes executed 
and delivered on Sunday are held in many cases to fall within the 
interdiction of such general laws, and the rule applicable to such 
instruments is, that the plaintiff cannot recover when, in order to sus- 
tain his supposed claim, he must set up an illegal agreement, to which 
he himself is a party. ^^ In some cases the question is made to depend 
upon the terms and provisions of the statutes, and consequently it 
has been held that statutes prohibiting labor or the performance of 
any work do not extend to the making of contracts."^ But it is 
delivery that completes a contract, and if the bill or note be delivered 
on another day, it will be valid, though dated and signed on Sunday; " 
and parol evidence is competent to show that it was so delivered on a 
different day, notwithstanding its date as of Sunday; ^ and e cnn- 

1 Tyrw. 130; O'Rourke v. O'Rourke, 43 Mich. 58; Chitty, Jr., ITjIO; Chitty on 
Bills [*148], 171; Thompson on Bills, 171. 

55. Haucrwius el al. v. Goodloo, Recr., 101 Ala. 162, 13 So. 567; Ball v. Powers, 
62 Ga. 757; Pope v. Linn, 50 Me. S3; Bank of Cumberland v. Mayberry, 48 Me. 
198; Finney v. Callendar, S Minn. 41; Bramhall v. Van Campen, 8 Minn. 13; 
Hartshorn v. Hartshorn, 67 N. H. 103; State Capitol Bank v. Thompson, 42 
N. H. 370; Smith v. Case, 2 Oreg. 190; Furz v. Nieholls, 2 M. G. i^i: S. ,500. A 
note executed on Sunday by one as a part of a transaction connected with his 
usual or ordinary callinp is void. Smith v. Christian, 6 Ga. App. 259, 64 S. E. 1002. 

56. Glover v. Cheatham, 19 Mo. App. 658. "The" purpose of our statute, 
when all of its provisions are considered, seems to be to prohibit the performance 
on Sunday only of those works or pursuits that from their nature have to be 
performed in public, and that may, therefore, be offensive to the sensibilities of 
the Christian community in which they are carried on, if followe<l on the Lord's 
Day. Hooks v. State, 58 Fla. 57, 50 So. 586. The casual execution and delivery 
of a promissory note does not come within the prohibition, and is not illegal and 
void, under statutes the manifest purpose of which was to prohibit the carrying 
on of any business or traffic to the extent of seriously interrupting the religious 
observances of Sunday. Holden v. O'Brien, 86 Minn. 297, 90 N. W. 531. 

57. Terry v. Piatt, 1 Pennewill (Del.), 185, 40 Atl. 243; Conrad v. Kinzie, 105 
Ind. 281; Hofer v. Cowan McClung & Co. (Ky.), 68 S. W. 438; Barger v. Farn- 
ham, 130 Mich. 487, 90 N. W. 281; Bank of Cumberland v. Mayberry, 48 Me. 198; 
Prescott Nat. Bank v. Butler, 157 Mass. 548, 32 N. E. 909. 

58. Flanagan v. Meyer, 41 Ala. 133; Aldridge v. Branch Bank, 17 Ala. 45; 
Trieber v. Commercial Bank, 31 Ark. 128; Vinton v. Peck, 15 Mich. 287; Drake 
V. Rogers, 32 Me. 524; Fritsch v. Heesless, 40 Me. 556; Lovejoy v. Whipple, 18 
Vt. 379; State Capitol Bank v. Thompson, 42 N. H. 376; Dohoney v. Dohoney, 
7 Bush, 217; King v. Fleming, 72 111. 21; Love v. Wells, 25 Ind. 503 (a deed); 
Burns v. Moore, 76 Ala. 339; Goss v. Whitney, 24 Vt. 187; Hill v. Dunham, 7 
Gray, 543; Stacy v. Kemp, 97 Mass. 166; Hauerwas et al. v. Goodloe, Recr., 101 
Ala. 162, 13 So. 567. 

§ 70 DELIVERY 105 

verso, that it was delivered on Sunday though dated as of a secular 
day.^ And when so delivered on a different day, it is no objection to 
it that interest commences to run on Sunday.^" Though the note 
made and delivered on Sunday be void, the payee may recover upon 
the original consideration," and it has been held that though a 
transaction had all taken place on Sunday, the maker cannot avoid 
payment of a note given on that day without restoring to the holder 
the money he received upon it.^^ xhe weight of authority seems to 
be, that, although a contract be entirely closed up on Sunday, yet, 
if ratified by the parties upon a subsequent day, it is valid.^^ 

§ 70. Rights of indorsee on contracts made on Sunday. — The 
indorsement of a bill (jr note on Sunday stands on the same footing as 
drawing a bill or making a note, and the indorsee cannot sue upon 
such an indorsement, either in his own name or in another's, for his 
benefit." But the defense that a note was made and delivered on 
Sunday cannot avail in a suit by an indorsee against the indorser, if 
the contract of indorsement wa.s not entered into on Sunday .^^ And 
if the bill or note bear a certain date, or it appears that it was executed 
upon a certain day of the month, the court will take judicial notice of 
the fact, if such day were Sunday. The almanac has long been re- 
garded and held as a part of the law of the land.^« And an indorsee 
would, doubtless, be chargeable with notice from the face of the 
paper, if the day of the date it bears was Sunday. 

69. Allen v. Deming, 14 N. H. 133; Bank of Cumberland v. Mayberry, 48 Me. 


60. Marshall v. Russell, 44 N. H. -WO. 

61. Sayre v. Wheeler, 31 Iowa, 112; Hartahom v. Hartshorn, 07 N. H. 163, 

29 Atl. 406. 

62. Hale v. Harris (Ky.), 91 S. W. (i(>0, .5 L. R. A. (N. S.), 295. 

63 KinK v FlominK. 72 111. 21; Commonwealth v. KendiK, 2 Pa. St. 448; 
ClouKh V. DavLs. 9 N. H. .500; Lovejoy v. Whipple, 18 Vt. 379; Hilton v. Hough- 
ton, 3.5 Me. 143; Winchell v. Carey, 115 Mass. 560; Cook v. Forker, 193 Pa. St. 
461, 44 Atl. 5»)0, 74 Am. St. Rep. 699, citing text. 

64 Honson v. Drake, 55 Me. 5.55. But see State Capitol Bank v. Thompson, 
42 N. H. 370; First Natl. Bank v. Kingsley, 84 Me. Ill, 24 Atl. 794; Cook v. 
Forker, 193 Pa. St. 461, citing text; Whitmire v. Montgomery, 165 Pa. St. 253, 

30 Atl. 1016. r. ««» t- 

66. Prescott Nat. Bank v. Butler, 157 Mass. 548, 32 N. E. 909, the court say- 
ing: "The defendant by his indorsement is estopped to deny that the note is a 
valid contract, and as against him it must be a.s.sumed that it was made and de- 
livered at a time when such business could be lawfully done." 

66. Chrisman v. Tuttle, 59 Ind. 155; Finney v. Callendar, 8 Minn. 41. 


Clearly, however, an indorsee who takes a bill or note dated as 
of a secular day, and without notice from its face or otherwise, that 
it was executed on Sunday, could recover upon it." But it has been 
held that a note signed by a surety on Sunday, but delivered on a 
week day to the payee, who did not know the fact, was void.®* This 
doctrine is inconsistent with the wei{j;ht of authority, anil with sound 
reason, as it is the delivery that gives significance to the act; and the 
paper, in the absence of notice, should always be taken to be what its 
face purports. If the instrument were without date, there would be 
nothing about it to intimate notice, or charge the indorsee with its 
illegality because made on Svniday.'^'-' It is urged by the learned 
editor of Ames on Bills, that while the transfer on Sunday is unlawful, 
it yet passes title, and that the transferee may sue prior parties.^" 
An analogous question is elsewhere discussed.^^ 

§ 71. The execution of a note does not import a debt existing pre- 
vious to the period of its execution; but its effect is to give the debt 
and the note a contemporaneous originJ^ Proof of the giving of a 

67. Myers v. Kessler, 142 Fed. 730; Mosclcy v. Sclma Nat. Bank (Ala. Apf).), 

57 So. 91; Trieber v. Commercial Bank, 31 Ark. 128; v. Bumpass, 40 Ark. 
547; Cranson v. Goss, 107 Mass. 439; Greathead v. Walton, 40 Conn. 81; Pope 
V. Linn, 50 Me. 84; State Capitol Bank v. Thompson, 42 N. H. 370; Clinton Nat. 
Bank v. Graves, 48 Iowa, 228; Ball v. Powers, 62 Ga. 757; Knox v. Clifford, 38 
Wis. 651; Nelson v. Cowing, 20 Wend. 336; Bigelow on Bills, 539; Benjamin's 
Chalmers' Digest, 24, 25. And though transferred after maturity, the maker has 
no equity against the transferee. He cannot set up its illegality to protect himself 
against the claim of a bona fide holder without notice. Leightman v. Kadetska, 

58 Iowa, 676, 43 Am. Rep. 129; Harrison v. Powers, 76 Ga. 240; Gordon v. Levine, 
197 INIass. 263, 83 N. E. 861, 15 L. R. A. (N. S.) 243, 125 Am. St. Rep. 361. 

68. Parker v. Pitts, 73 Ind. 598; Gilbert v. Vanchon, 69 Ind. 372. It is also 
held in Indiana that if a note be delivered to a comaker for the payee on Sunday 
it is void. Davis v. Barger, 57 Ind. 55. 

69. State Capitol Bank v. Thompson, 42 N. H. 370. In Benjamin's Chalmers' 
Digest, p. 24, it is stated, and Bigbie v. Levy, 1 Cromp. & J. 180 (1830), "that 
a bill bearing date on a Sunday is not presumed to have been issued on that day." 
The citation does not support the text. It was the case of suit against the ac- 
ceptor of a bill drawn payable to the drawer's order, the court saying that "the 
presumption arising from the known practice of merchants would be that the 
bill was not accepted on the day on which it was drawn." Chitty states that 
there is no objection to a bill being dated on Sunday. Chitty on Bills [*94], 114; 
[*148], 170 (13th Am. ed.). . 

70. Ames on Bills and Notes, vol. I, p. 352. 

71. §§ 762, 764, et seq. 

72. Johnson v. Lane's Trustees, 11 Gratt. 553. 



promissory note by one person to another, nothing else appearing, is 
prima fade evidence of an accounting and settlement of all demands 
between the parties, and that the maker at the date of the note was 
indeljted to the payee upon such settlement to the amount of such 
note.'^ But this is a mere presumption, which may be repelled by 
proofs of the consideration of such note, and of the occasion for and 
circumstances attentling tlie giving of the same.^^ And the presump- 
tion does not apply to include notes previously given.'^ 

73. Lake v. Tyson, 6 N. Y. 461 ; Davis v. Gallagher, 55 Hun, 595; Do Freest v. 
BloominKilalo, 5 Den. 304; Dutcher v. Porter, G3 Barb. 20; Sherman v. Mclntyre, 
7 Hun, .W2; TLsdale v. Maxwell, 5S Ala. 40; Graves v. Shulman, 59 .Via. 400; Chal- 
loner v. Hoyinnton, 91 WLs. 27, G4 N. W. 422, citing and approving text; Mar- 
mion, v. McCliUan, 11 .\pp. D. C. 4G7. 

74. Sherman v. Mclntyre, 7 Hun, 592. 
76. TLsdale v. Maxwell, 5S Ala. 40. 




§ 72. Having sufficiently treated of the elements essential to the 
contract in order to impart to it the character of negotiability, we 
now come to speak of tlie formal preparation and delivery of the 

§ 73. As to the peculiar forms of bills and notes. — It does not 
appear necessary that they should be framed in any particular form, 
provided they possess the essential qualities which have been men- 
tioned. We give the forms which are usually in vogue among mer- 
chants, and it would be unwise to depart from them.^ But the law 

1. Chitty on Bills [♦1281, 148. 

1. Usual Form of Bills. 

New York, Jan. 1, 1913. 

On demand (or at sight — or ten days after sight — or thirty days after date) 
please pay to John Doe, or order (or bearer), five hundred dollars, value re- 
ceived, and charge the same to my account. 

Richard Roe. 
To David Sterling, Esq., 

2. Form of Foreign Bill Drawn in Set of Three. 

New York, Jan. 1, 1913. 

Sixty days after date, please pay to John Doe, or order, five hundred dollars, — 
this our first of exchange, second and third not paid. 

Richard Roe. 
To David Sterling, Esq., 

Edinburgh, Scotland. 

3. Usual Form of Negotiable Promissory Note. 

New York, Jan. 1, 1913. 

Two months after date (or at other specified time), I promise to pay to John 
Doe, or order (or bearer), five hundred dollars, value received. 

Richard Roe. 



respects substance more than form; and where the intention appears 
to have assumed the ()blip;ations which devolve upon drawers and 
makers of negotiable instruments, it will be enforced, although not 
evidenced in the usual commercial form. Thus, an order written 
under a note, "Please pay the above note, and hold it against mo in 
our settlement," signed by the drawer and accepted by the drawee, 
has been held a good bill; ^ and so also has been held a like order 
written under an account.^ And where an indorsement was written 
on a bond, ordering the contents to be paid to order for value received 
it was held a good bill.'' And an instrument of the following tenor: 
"Nobleboro, October 4th, 18()i). Nathaniel O. Winslow, Cr. By 
labor 16^4 days, a $4 per day, S(i7. CJood to bearer. (Signed,) Wm. 
Vannah," has been decided to be a negotiable promissory note, pay- 
able to Winslow on demand.'' The words "this is to certify I am to 
pay" are a sufficient promise." But the words under an itemized 
account: "A. B., pay the above bill," if naming no payee, 
would not be a bill; ' and the like view was taken where under such 
an account was written: "Mr. Solomon, plea,se to pay the above 
account to Messrs. Oliver «t Son, 7 Lawrence Lane, and oblige, yours 
respectfully, R. Norris." * 

§ 74. Signature. — It does not matter upon what portion of the 
instrument the maker or drawer affixes his name, so that he signed 

4. Form of Joint Note. 

New York, Jan. 1, 1913. 


Oil ilcmund wo promiise to paj' John Dok, or order, five hundred dollars, value 


RirnAKD STp:uLiNa. 
5. Form of Joint and Several Note. 

New York, Jan. 1, 1913. 

One month after date, I promise to pay for we jointly and severally promise to 
pay) JoH.N Doe, or order, five hundred dollars, value received. 

Richard Roe. 
RicHAUD Sterling. 

2. I^eonard v. Ma.son, 1 Wend. 252. 

3. Hoyt V. Lyneh, 2 Sandf . 32S. 

4. Bay v. Krazer, 1 Bay, 6G. But see Norris v. Solomon, 2 Moody & R. 117. 
6. Hussey v. Winslow, .59 Me. 170. 

6. Meyer v. Weil, .37 La. Ann. IGO. 

7. Platzer v. Norris, 38 Tex. .387. 

8. Norris v. Solomon, 2 Moody & R. 266. 


as drawer or maker.'' In a late case, where the maker of a note, 
which was in printed form, by mistake signed his name above the 
printed line which stated the bank at which it was payable, it was 
held that the printed line below the siRnature was nevertheless part 
of the note, especially where it had interest coujwns attached, and 
was indorsed in that form; these circumstances precluding all doubt 
of the fact that the designation of the place of payment was on the 
note at the time it was executitl.'" "I, A. B., promise to pay," is as 
good a note, if written by A. B. or his authorized agent, as " I prom- 
ise to pay," subscribed "A. B." '^ And so "I, A. B., request you 
to pay," would be a good l)ill, though not undersigned.'- Nor is it 
at all material whether the writing is in pencil or ink," though, as a 
matter of permanence and security, ink is, of course, preferable. 
And the name may be printed as well as written, though, in such 
cases, it cannot prove itself and must be shown to have been adopteil 
and used by the party as his signature." If another sign the name 
of the party in his presence and at his request, it is the same as if 

9. Hunt V. Adams, 5 Miuw. 359; CUuson v. Btiiloy, 14 Johns. 4.S4; Schmidt v. 
SchnKiclfer, 4.5 Mo. .502. Where a note wius n'\f.m\i at the foot by one iK'r«on and 
endorsed on the back by another, they are joint makern. .MeGraw v. Union 
Trust Co., \M Mich. .521, IH) N. W. 7.5S. While it is tru<', that Kenerally the 
makers' names are sipned to a note at its foot, and the indon«>rs, if any, on its 
back, and without more the names of those ap|)earing on the back would be pre- 
sumed to have been placed there as indorsers, and not as makers, yet, we know 
of no rule of law, which requires that the makers may not place their names on 
any part of the note where they may prefer to write them, and thus bind them- 
selves aa makers. It is immaterial, in other worils, upon what part of a note the 
name of a maker may be written. Endora Min. A: Co. v. Harday, 122 Ala. .506, 
2(3 So. 113. Where a note is signed but not indorsed by the payee, and other par- 
ties sign on back thereof payee may treat such parties, in the absence of any agree- 
ment to the contrary', either as indorsers or joint makers. Miller v. Clendenin, 
42 W. Va. 416, 26 S. E. 512. A note with a warrant of attorney to confess judg- 
ment is sufficiently executed though the signature of the maker is not attached to 
the note proper, but only to the warrant of attorney at the foot of the same sheet 
of paper upon which both the note and warrant of attorney were written. Heslip 
V. Anderson, 134 111. App. 8. 

10. Turnbull v. Thomas, 1 Hughes, 172. 

11. Taylor v. Dobbins, 1 Stra. 399. 

12. Saunderson v. Jackson, 2 Bos. & P. 238; Chitty, Jr., on Bills, 10. 

13. Brown v. Butchers' Bank, 6 Hill, 443; Reed v. Roark, 14 Tex. 329; Closson 
V. Stearns, 4 Vt. 11; Geary v. Physic, 5 B. & C. 234; Chitty on Bills (*126], 147. 
A deed in pencil has been deemed sufficient. McDowell v. Chambers, 1 Strobh. 
Eq. 347. 

14. Schneider v. Norris, 2 Maule & S. 286; Brown v. Butchers' Bank, 6 Hill, 
443; Pennington v. Baehr, 48 Cal. 565; Story on Bills, § 58. 


he did it himself; '' and if another sign the party's name by verbal 
or other authority, it is sufficient.i« The full name may be written; 
and at least the surname should appear, and generally does. But 
this is not indispensable-the initials are sufficient,^^ and any mark 
which the party uses to indicate his intention to bind himself will 
be as effectual as his signature,^ whether there be a certificate of 
witnesses on the instrument or noV' But of course a mark does 
not prove itself lik e a signature, although it is an adminicle of proof.- 

16. Sugcr V. Tupper, 42 Mich. (305; Cruinrim. v. The Estate of Crumrino, 14 
Ind App 641 43 N- K. 322. It id comjH'tt'nt and K'KuI for the surety to act M 
an auent for the principal in HiRninR his name to a bond in his presence and at his 
request, an.i the fact that the principal made his mark after his surety had signed 
the principal's name, without witness thereto, did not take from the vahdity of 
effi.-acy of the exe<-ution of the contract as having his signature thereto at his 
instance-. Wright v. Forgy. 12() Ala. :i89, 2S .So. I'.tS. 

16 The note in controversy wim signnl hy a n.ark, and there wius no evidence 
that the dectHlent touchi-d the iK-n in the hand of the person who signed h.s name 
for him It is not necessarj-, in the execution of a note, that the person executing 
it if unable to write hi.s own name, shall touch the in-n while su<'h person is signing 
fo'r hi.n. it is only m.-essuo' that such person l>e authorized by lum to H'gn h.s 
name for him. S^v Kennedy v. C.raham. Admr.. 9 Ind. .\pp. ti24, 35 N. L. 92o, .i7 
N.K.2.5. S<-e§§2<H).274. ,i^ i-,. 

17. Merchants' Hank v. Spicer. Wend. 443; Palmer v. Stephens, 1 Di-n. \.l, 
1 Parsons on Notes and BilLn. 30. , , c ri loo 

18. Jackson v. Tribble, 15(i Ala. 480, 47 So. 310; Lyons v. H..lm<>s. 11 S. C. 4.J. 
r.ul.r the common law rule that the execution of an instrument by mark is 
sutlM-ient and this without attestation, a promissor>- note is validly executed by 
an intend.Hi pav.r, who cannot write his name, by the aflixing a cross mark bi- 
tw,.-n an initial ..f hLs name an.l his surname, the initials and name being written 
by the pavtH.. and the name of tlu- witness, who ••ouM not write h.s 
name, being also written by the paycn-. McGowan v. Collins, 154 Ala. 299, 4b 

''^ig.'willoughby v. MouUon, 47 N. H. 205 (unwitne8.sed) ; Shank v. Butsch 28 
Ind 19 (unwitnc-ssed); Flint v. Flint, 6 Allen, 34; Hilborn v. .Vlfonl, 22 Cal 4S.; 
G.-i.rge V. Surrev, 1 Moodv & M. 510, where the indorsement wtis ' Ann Moore 
X her mark." \^To^^■n v. Butchers' Bank, ti Hill, 443, where the figures 1, 2, 8 
were held suflicii-nt. 

20. Hilborn v. Alford, 22 Cal. 482; Flowers v. Billing, 4o .Ma. 488. See cases 
supra, and Story on Bills, § 53. note 6. The promisee cannot become the agent 
of the promisor, for the purpose of signing his name to the contract, and a no e 
is not legally proved by the evidence of the payee who testifies that he wrote 
the note, signed the name of the defendant, and made his mark the defendant 
touching the ix.n. Penton v. Williams, 163 Ala. 603. 51 So. 35. W hen a statute 
prescribes the manner in which a note must be signed by mark, aa, that the signa- 
ture near the mark must be written by a person who writes his own name as a 
witness, a note must be signed in that manner to be valid. Sivils v. Taylor, 1- 
Okla. 47, 69 Pac. 867. 


Any peculiarity in it may be shown as evidence of its genuineness: ^^ 
but, unless there be an attesting witness, or one who saw it written, 
or is familiar with its characteristics, the plaintiff cannot recover.^^ 
Proof by subscribing witnesses is elsewhere consicleri-d.-^ 

§ 75. The name is not necessary if it be sufficiently indicated who 
the party is. A note signed "Steamboat Ben Lee and owners," 2* 
has been held sufficient; and likewise a bill drawn on "Steamer C,\ W. 
D. and owners," and accepted "Steamer C. W. D., by A. B., agent." " 

§ 76. Manifest informalities. — A manifest informality of expres- 
sion or grammatical error, whether in respect to date, amount, time, 
place, or other matter, will in nowise affect th<' validity of a bill or 
note. Thus, it has been held that a note in form negt)tiable, but 
running, "sixty days after date, I promised to pay," instead of "I 
promise," was as good as if the promise in the past tense had been 
expressed in the present.-^ So the singular "pound" clearly means 
"pounds;" 27 the words "Fife hundred" means "five hundred,"^ 
and "four hund," "four hundred." ^ A note payable "twenty-four 
after date,"'" and one payable "six after date," ^^ have been held not 
void for uncertainty, but parol evidence has been admitted to ascer- 
tain the intention of the parties; and a note payable "four months 
after," has been held payable "four months after date," ^^ and a 
note payable "ninety after date" at ninety days." So where the 
note was payable "seventy-five after date" parol evidence was ad- 
mitted to show that days were intended.'^ "With ten per cent, after 

21. George v. Surrey, 1 Moody & M. 516; Thompson on Bills, 35; 2 Parsons 
on Notes and Bills, 480. 

22. See Thompson on Bills, 30, 31, 33. Contra, Staples v. Beiiford Loan & 
Dep. Bank, 98 Ky. 451, 33 S. W. 403; Chadwell's Admr. v. Chadwell, 98 Ky. 643, 
33 S. W. 1118. 

23. Post, § 112. 

24. Sanders v. Anderson, 21 Mo. 402. 

25. Alabama v. Brainard, 35 Ala. 478. 

26. Perkins' Case, 7 Gratt. 651; Commonwealth v. Pannenter, 5 Pick. 279. 

27. Rex V. Post, Russ. & Ry., 101. 

28. Ohm V. Young, 63 Ind. 412. 

29. Glenn v. Porter, 72 Ind. 526. 

30. Conner v. Routh, 7 How. (Miss.) 176. 

31. Nichols V. Frothingham, 45 Me. 220. 

32. Pearson v. Stoddard, 9 Gray, 199. 

33. Deshon v. Leffler, 7 Mo. App. 595. 

34. Boykin v. Bank of Mobile, 72 Ala. 262. 


due,"^^ or "at ten per cent, value received," ^^ or "with ten per 
cent.,"^^ clearly means with ten per cent, "interest," although the 
word "interest" be omitted. 

Where a note is dated in December, and made payable on "the 
25th of December next," it is admissible to show that December 
instant was intended.^ And where a bill was drawn "payable on 
the 6-9 Jan.," the evidence of bankers and brokers was held admissi- 
ble to show that the figures were designed to deginate the days of 
grace.^^ The words "are to be paid," if obviously necessary to make 
sense, may be understood as implied, and considered as inserted.'^ 
A note drawn "payable at Citz. Bank," evidently means at Citizen's 

§ 77. Material. — As to the material upon which negotiable in- 
struments should be written, it does not appear to be necessary that 
the substance should be paper. It is conceived that they might be 
written on parchment, cloth, leather, or any other convenient sub- 
stitute for paper." Whether a valid bill or note may be written 
upon metal, stone, or wood, does not seem to have been decided; 
but if it were distinctly proven that the instrument was intended 
as a bill or note, the substance could be no objection to its validity. 
But it is of course entirely out of the usual course of business; and 
it must rarely, if ever, occur that such a question is presented. Cer- 
tainly, the courts would look with suspicion upon so peculiar an 
instrument; and its unusual form wouUl, in itself, be a warning to 
all purchiisers that they took it at their peril.*' A metallic token, like 
an I. O. U., would seem at common law to be only evidence of a debt."* 

§ 78. Printed notes.— Individuals, bankers, and others have 
frequently, in the United States, issued their promi-ssory notes in 

36. HiKloy v. Newoll, 28 Iowa, 516. 

36. \Villiam.s v. Bakor, 07 111. 23.8; Thompson v. Hoaftland, 05 ill. 310; Cramer 
V. .I<Mi.T. 05 HI. 314. 

37. < )hm V. Younp, 03 Ind. 412. 

38. McCrar>' v Ca-skcy, 27 Ga. 54. 

39. Kolscy v. Hiblw. 13 Ohio (N. S.), 340. 

40. Peyton v. Harman, 22 Gratt. G43. 

41. Ivocke V. Merchants' Nat. Bank, 66 Ind. 355. 

42. Byles on Bills (Sharswood's cd.), 105. A deed must be written upon parch- 
ment or paiaer. Coke Litt. 229. 

43. 1 Parsons on Notes and Bills, 23. 

44. Byles on Bills (Sharswood's ed.), 281. 



printed forms closely resemhliiif^ in size, color, and texture of paper, 
and in mode of execution, bank notes. They are intended to cir- 
culate as money, and very often constitute a currency in themselves, 
when no National or State law prohibits them. They are valid obli- 
gations when not so prohibited, and are enforced by the courts as 
the promissory notes of the parties executing them.^* 

§ 79. Whole instrument must be in writing.— The whole of the 
bill or note must be expressed in writing. But the whole of it nrvd 
not be in the body of the instrument; '^ and a contemporaneous 
memorandum or indorsement on any part of it may qualify its terms 
by making it payai)le upon a conting<'ncy," or at a particular place.''* 
or providing that it may be renewed.'^ And there may be a written 
stipulation on a detached paper affecting the instrument, which 
would hi) atlmissible as between the original parties and their repre- 
sentatives; ^ but such stii)ulation would not affect a bona fide holder 
for value, who acciuired it without notice.^^ But any party having 
notice would stand on no better footing than the original parties." 
Whether the instrument be a bill of exchange or a promissory note 
or otherwise, antl whether or not it ])e negotiable, must be determined 
by its face, without reference to any other source. ^^ 

§ 80. Parol evidence. — It is a general principle of law that 
parol evidence is inadmissible to vary or contradict a written con- 
tract. Therefore, if a bill or note be absolute upon its face, no evi- 
dence of a verbal agreement made at the same time, qualifying its 
terms, can be admitted.^"* The rule applies to the offer of parol 

46. James v. Rogers, 23 Ind. 453. 

46. Goldman v. Blum, 58 Tex. 636, citing the text. 

47. Beele v. Bidgood, 1 Man. & Ry. 143, 7 B. & C. 453; Hartley v. Wilkinson, 
4 Maule & S. 25; Hey wood v. Perrin, 10 Pick. 228; Shaw v. M. E. Society, 8 
Mete. (Mass.) 22G; Chitty on Bills [*126], 146; Wheelock v. Freeman, 13 Pick. 
168; Byles (Sharswood's ed.) [*94], 193; Leeds v. Lancashire, 2 Campb. 205; 
Hughes V. Fisher, 10 Colo. 385, citing the text. 

48. Ibid. 

49. Hartley v. Wilkinson, 4 Maule & S. 25. 

50. Bowerbank v. Monteiro, 4 Taunt. 844. 

51. Hoare v. Graham, 3 Campb. 57; Gilmore v. Hirst, 56 Kan. 626, 44 Pac. 
603, quoting text. 

62. Gibbon v. Scott, 2 Stark. 286. 

53. Strachan v. Muxton, 24 Wis. 21. 

54. Burns v. Scott, 117 U. S. 582; Clark v. Gramling, 54 Ark. 525, 16 S. W. 
475; Cooper v. German Nat. Bank of Denver et al., 9 Colo. App. 169, 47 Pac. 1041; 


evidence to vary the date of the maturity of a promissory note; ^^ 
thus, whore a note is payable on demand, it cannot be shown by 
verbal testimony that it was agreed that it should not be paid till 
after the decease of the testator;^ nor until after sale of the maker's 

Carroll v. Hutchinson, 2 Ga. App. GO, 58 S. E. 309; Davis v. Stout, 126 Ind. 12, 
25 N. E. 802; Zimmerman v. Adee, 120 Ind. 15, 25 N. E. 828; Potter v. Earnest, 
45 Ind. 410; Preacott v. Hixon, 22 Ind. App. 139, 53 N. E. 391, 72 Am. St. Rep. 
291; Altman v. Anton, 91 Iowa, 012, 00 N. W. 191; Beattyville Bank v. Roberts, 
117 Ky. 0X9, 78 S. W. 901 ; Whitwell v. Winslow, 133 Mass. 343; Kelsey v. Cham- 
berlain, 47 Mich. 241; Harri.«jn v. Morri-son, 39 Minn. 319; Kessler v. Clayes, 
147 Mo. App. H.S, 125 S. \V. 799, citing text; Chicago Cottage Organ Co. v. Smart- 
zcU, 01 Mo. App. 490; Miller v. Gunderson, 48 Nebr. 715, 07 N. W. 709; Van 
Etten V. Howell, 40 Nebr. 8.50; Stiles v. Vandewater (N. J.), 3 Cent. 485, citing 
the text; Heecher v. Dunlap, 52 Ohio St. 04, 38 N. E. 795; McGrath v. Barnes, 
13 S. C. 328; Har\v(Kxi v. Brown, 5 West. 00. In Thomas v. Seutt, 127 N. Y. 
133, the court said that there are two claasea of exceptions to the general rule 
that parol evidence cannot be receive<l as to the contract of the parties to a nego- 
tiable in.strunient. The first cliuss includ«>H these caiw-s in which parol evidence is 
received to show that a written instrument which jHinKirts to be a contract is 
in fact no contract at all. The s<-cond chuss embru<-es^ viim-h which recognize 
the instrument as existing and valiil, but regard it tus incomjjlete, either obviously 
or at least possibly, and admit parol evidence, not to contrmlict or vary, but to 
com{»lete, the entire agn^'ment, of which the writing was only a part. And that 
two things are ess<'ntial to bring a case within second class: 1. The writing must 
not a|)|M-ar ujMjn ins|H-ction to be a complete contract, embracing all the par- 
ticulars ne<-«'ssjiry to make a jK-rfect agreement, and designed to express the whole 
arrangement between the parties, for in such a <as<' it is conclusively presumeti 
to embrace the entire contract. 2. The parol evi<lence be consistent with, 
and not contradictory of, the written instrument. Set; also Stowell v. Green- 
wich Ins. Co., 163 N. Y. .305. Thus Ix-ing the rule as between the original parties 
to the instrument, it follows that the defense could not be set up as against a 
subs«>(|uent holder of the note, who t(X)k after maturity of the note. Anderson v. 
Mitchell, 51 Wash. 2t>5, 9S Pac. 751. That the note simply showed the interest 
of the paycH' in certain land and is not evidence of any indebte«lnes8 on the part of 
the maker, cannot be provinl by t(^timony of a contemiwraneous agreement. 
Chapman v. Chapman, 132 Iowa, 5, WJ N. W. 300, citing text. In a suit upon 
a note, a plea is demurrable which alleges that the note was given in jiursuance of 
an oral agreement that the payee employeti the maker to work for him the sub- 
sequent year, and a«lvancetl to him the money for which the note was given, with 
the understanding that he was to pay it in certain installments out of his wages, 
and that the payee refused to carry out his contract of employment. Johnson v. 
NLsbit, 137 Ga. 1.50, 72 S. E. 915. 

66. Crooker v. Hamilton, 3 Ga. App. 190, 59 S. E. 722; MaUory v. Fitzgerald, 
69 Nebr. 312, 95 N. W. 001. 

66. Woodbridge v. Spooner, 3 B. & Aid. 2.33; Graves v. Clark, 6 Blackf. 183. 
Nor that makers of a promissory note signet! as sureties, especially when there 
is an affirmative statement in the note that the parties signed as principals. Win- 
gate v. Blalock, 15 Wash. 45, 45 Pac. 663. 


estates; " nor until a certain account should be adjusted and cretiited 
on its face;^ nor until certain premises were delivered up; •'•* nor 
until a dividend of a bankrupt's assets should have been made; "*' nor 
until the junount was coUectetl from certain sources;^' nor until a 
certain draft wjis received; '^ nor can it be shown verbally that de- 
mand of a post-dated check was not to be made at maturity ;^^ nor 
tliat a note in which no time for payment is expressed, and is there- 
fore constructively payable on demand, wius to Ih' paid at a specified 
time; "' nor can it be shown that there was any agreement to prolonu; 
or vary the time of payment specified in the instrument ."^^ by takiuf? 
part payment and waiting for the residue, by receiving payment 
on installments, or otherwise than the instrument itself declares,*'"' 
nor vary the place of pa>Tnent;'^ nor that the liability of the 

67. Gctto V. Binkert, 55 Kan. Ml, 40 Par. 925; Freo v. Hawkins, 8 Taunt. 92, 
1 J. B. Mo()n\ 5;{5. 

68. Miihiin V. Sherman, 7 Blackf. 37S; San Joh6 Sav. Bank v. Stonr, 59 Cal. 
ISH, citing thv text. 

69. Moseley v. Hanfonl, 10 B. A C 729. 

60. Kiiw.soM V. Walker, 1 Stjirk. MM. 

61. Campbell V. I', 7 llumphr. 1K5; McCIananhan v. TTines, 2 Strohh. 
122; Litehfielil v. Faleoner, 2 .\la. 280; Dc Ixing v. \ah', 7A Iowa, r,:i; Van Ve<ht.n 
V. Smith, .W Iowa, 73. 

62. Kineaici v. Higgins, 1 Bibb, .39G. 

63. Hill V. Gaw, 4 Barr, 493. 

64. Thompson v. Ketehum, S Johns. 1S9. 

65. Jones v. Taylor, 5 Ga. App. Itil, tVJ S. E. 992; Crooker v. Hamilton, 3 Ga. 
App. 190, 59 S. E. 722; Homewood I'eopl.-'s Bank v. Heekert, 207 Pa. St. 231, .5t) 
All. 431. An oral agreement having relation only to the time and manner of 
repayment, if it can be considered at all, can be given effect, not to destroy the 
enforceability of the notes rei)re.s<'nt ing the advancement, but, at best, a.s a biusi.s 
on which to rest a claim for damages. Ilouts v. Siou.x City Brass Works, 134 la. 
484, HON. W. 166. 

66. Eaton v. Emerson, 14 Me. 335; Barton v. Wilkins, 1 Mo. 74; Dawson v. 
Bank of Illinois, 4 Scam. 50; Walker v. Clay, 21 Ala. 797; Doss v. Peterson, S2 
Ala. 256; Gardner v. Matthews, 11 Mo. App. 209; Port ecus v. Muir, 8 Ont. 127; 
Wilse v. Whitaker, 22 Hun, 242; Blakemore v. Wood, 3 Sneed, 470; Rice v. 
Ragland, 10 Humphr. 545; Sturdivant v. Hull, 59 Me. 172; Roache v. Roanoke 
Classical Seminary, 56 Ind. 202. 

67. In Atwood v. Little Bonanza Quicksilver Co., 13 Cal. App. 594, 110 Pac 
344, under a statute (Civil Code, §3100) providing that "a negotiable instru- 
ment which does not specify a place of pajTnent, is payable at the residence or 
place of business of the maker, or wherever he may be found," it was held that a 
note executed by a foreign corporation, failing to show any place of payment, is 
payable in the place of the domicile of the maker, and evidence of a contem- 
poraneous oral agreement that notes were to be payable wnthin the State cannot 
be received. 


drawer, «« maker,^'* or other party ,7° was not to be enforced; nor that it 
was not to be negotiated, but renewed;'' nor that a party joint-maker 
in form, supposed his Habihty to be that of an indorser; ^^ nor that 
it was not to be paid in cjuse a certain verdict was obtained," or in any 
other event; '^ nor that it was to be paid to some person other than 
the payee; ^^ nor that it was merely given as an indemnity against 

68. Wood V. Sum-Il, SO 111. 107; CumminKs v. Kent, 44 Ohio St. 02, cif iri^ Ih*. 

69. Piiync v. .Mutuul Life In.s. Co., 141 FVd. ;{:}9; Armstrong v. Soott, 30 Fed. 
<i;}; Hibhop V. Dillunl, 4«) Ark. 2S,",; Mjuson v. Mu«)n, 72 Iowa, 4.')7; Ccrth v. 
KiikKt, 71 lowu, OIG; Hank v. MiuuiiriK, (M) Kun. 721), 57 Pac. 949; Lipsctt v. 
HjiKsjird, l.-).S Mich. rAY.), 122 N. W. U)91; Hiuw v. Sanhom, 119 Mo. Apj). W.i, 9.5 
S. W. 9.5.'); Wright v. HcmiriKtoM, 41 N. .1. 1.. (i:{ Vrootii) 4S; W«vtcm Carolina 
Bank v. .M(H)n-, l.{.S N. C. .529, .5! S. K. 79; WillouKliln- v. Hall, IS Okl. .5:i.5, <M) 
Par. 1017; Dol.son v. DtCJanahl, 70'rix. (;2I ; Davy v. Krlh y, tWi Wi.s. 4.5.5. In an 
a<-tion on a note, im iwcominixlation maker rniinot hIkjw \>y parol ovidcnco that 
tin- payc*' aKni-*! (hat hi- hIiouM not Ix- htld liable but that th<> payee woulfl look 
to the on<' for who.s«' acoommodation the note wa« made. Karle v. KnoH, l.iO 
Fed. 4t)7. Where a note ujxjn itn faee in joint and wveral, evidenee oJTered to 
Hhow that an idleR*-*! rontem|M)nuH'otH oral aKre<-ment that each of the sinners 
nhould l>e liable only for his pro rata part of the noten should be excluded. 
W<KxiH V. Kinley, 1.5;{ \. C. 4.57, 09 S. K. .502. Hut in O'Hrien v. Patl.r.son 
Hrewinn A .Mahinn Co., 09 N. J. i:<|. 117, (51 Atl. 4;{7, it wjw held that the maker 
of a ncKotiable pn»mi.s«)r>- note may show by parol that it never had any binding 
eff«Tt U|)on him in (Hiuity ; that by the triwle that wim ma<le he wouhl not Im- called 
uiK)n to jiay the note; in intjuirinK into the objeet.n and ijurpo.^e.s of u writing e«jiiity 
i.s more lilM-ral than law, and will not jx-rmit a written contract to be u.s<"d for 
|)ur[><>.x«'n for which it wjls not intende«i. 

70. § 719; Ketidell V. Iljirriman, 7.5 .Me. 497; Davi.s v. Englan.!. Ill Mms. .5S7; 
IlefTner v. Hn)wne||, 7.5 low.i, .Ml. In the ab.s4-nce of framl or mi.Mtake, a mirety on 
a note cannot \h' allowinl to show a eonlem|)orane«iii.s understanding that he 
Hluiul.l not lx« lield liable on the note. Farmers' Bank v. WicklifTe, IM Ky. 787, 
1 10 S. W. 249. See al.^o Fambro v. Keith (Tex. Civ. App.), 122 S. W. 40. 

71. IleLst v. Hart, 73 Pa. St. 2.Sti; McCrath v. BamcH, 13 S. C. 328; Thompson 
v. I/)ve, 01 Ark. SI, 32 S. W. 8.5; Waddle v. Owen, 43 \ebr. 4S9, 01 N. W. 731. 
When' a mortgage was given to secure a note, and it wius i)rovided in the instru- 
ment that the payee of the note had agr^-d to n-new it from time to time, it was 
ndmuHsible to show that a note Ixaring :i later date was a renewal of that first 
given. C.armany v. Uwton, 124 Ca. S70, o3 S. E. GG9, 110 Am. St. Rej). 207. 

72. Cooke V. Brown, 02 Mich. 474. 

73. Foster v. Jolly, 2 Cromp., M. & R. 703. 

74. Jones V. Shaw, 07 Mo. 007; post, § 81; Gardner v. Matthews, 81 Mo. 027; 
Farmer v. Perr>-, 70 Iowa. 3,58; Western Mfg. Co. v. Rogers, .54 Nebr. 4.5G, 74 
N. W. 849; Murchi<' v. Peck Hnxs., 100 111. 17.5, 43 N. E. .3.50. 

76. DrajK-r v. Rice, .5() Iowa, 1 14. A statement of the maker of a note that he 
did not know it was payable to the payee is not admissible unless inseparably con- 


certain claims; ^^ nor merely as a receipt;" nor merely as a matter 
of form; ^^ nor (in case of a bill) that it won in full discharge of the 
debt and of liability on the bill.'^ But if a party signed a note on 
the false assurance that it was a receipt, instead of a note, he acting 
on that assurance and not reading the paper, it seems that such evi- 
dence between the parties would be admissible to show fraud.^ 
On this subject the United States Supreme Court has said: "Negotia- 
ble notes are written instruments, and as such they cannot be con- 
tradicted, nor can their terms be varied by parol evidence; and that 
proposition is universally true where the promissory note is in the 
hands of an innocent holder. Where a bill of exchange was drawn 
in the usual form, and was protested for nonpayment, the court 
held twenty years ago that parol evidence of an understanding be- 
tween the drawer and the party in whose favor the bill was drawn 
was inadmissible to vary the terms of the instrument." ^^ 

Under Negotiable Instrument statute.— In the absence of a showing 
of want of failure of consideration, or of fraud or mistake, it is in- 
competent for one who signs a promissory note as principal to set up 
an independent collateral agreement limiting or exempting him 
from liaV)ility.*' And the rule that parol evidence cannot be received 
to show that the obligation of a party to a negotiable instrument 
was not to be enforced, is recognized by the statute in the provision 
declaring that an accommodation party is liable on the instrum(mt 
to a holder for value, notwithstanding such holder at the time of 
taking the instrument knew him to be only an accommodation party ,*^ 
and parol evidence that there was an agreement at the time a note 

nected with evidence tending to show want of consideration. Harrison v. State 
Bank of Monticello, 47 Ind. App. 568, 94 N. E. 1020. 

76. Ridout V. Bristow, 1 Cromp. & J. 231. 

77. BiUings v. BilUngs, 10 Cush. 178; Dickson v. Harris, 60 Iowa, 727. But 
in Bond v. Vandergrift, 128 N. Y. S. 1078, it was held that it may be shown by 
parol that a note was executed as a receipt to show the amount of money ad- 
vanced by the payee in the promotion of a corporation in which he was in- 

78. Wright v. Remington, 12 Vroom (N. J.), 48. 

79. Martin v. Lewis, 30 Gratt. 672. 

80. Stoyell v. Stoyell, 82 Me. 334, 19 Atl. 860. 

81. Brown v. Spofford, 95 U. S. (5 Otto) 480 (1877). See Brown v. Wiley, 20 
How. 442; Specht v. Howard, 16 Wall. 564; Forsyth v. Kunball, 91 U. S. (1 Otto) 
291; Martin v. Lewis, 30 Gratt. 672; Foster v. Clifford, 44 Wis. 569; Cashman v. 
Harrison, 90 Cal. 297, 27 Pac. 283, citing text. 

82. Pitt v. Little, 58 Wash. 255, 108 Pac. 941. 

83. Appendix, sec. 29. 


was executed that an accommodation maker would not be called 
upon to pay the note cannot be received.^^ 

§ 81, The principle applies to every element of the instrument. 
It cannot be showTi by parol that the sum agreed to be paid was 
different; ^^ nor that an additional sum was to be paid in a certain 
contingency ; ^ nor that a certain account was to be deducted from 
the note,^^ or the value of certain articles credited upon it;^ nor that 
a note payable in "lawful money" was to be paid in silver f^ nor 
when expressed to be payable in dollars, that it was payable in bank 
notes, corporation or individual notes, or in any paper currency,^ 
or in goods or other articles.^^ In Missouri, it has been held that if 
payable in the "currency of the State," it cannot be shown that any- 
thing was intended but gold and silver, or notes of the Bank of 
Missouri.^- Nor can any condition be engrafted in the instrument 

84. Gerli v. National Mill Supply Co., 78 N. J. L. 1, 73 All. 252. 

86. Beard v. White, 1 Ala. 436, 5 Port. (Ala.) 94; Carter v. Hamilton, 11 Barb. 
147; Downs v. Web.stcr, Brayt. 79; Loudermilk v. Loudermilk, 93 Ga. 443, 21 
S. E. 77; Bowen v. E. A. Wa.\elbaum & Bro., 2 Ga. App. 521, 58 S. E. 784. In 
an action at law on a note, the defendant cannot show that through an oversight 
and accident the note by its terms wa.s miule to read with interest at 8 per cent, 
instead of 6 per cent. Cochran v. Zacher>-, 137 Iowa, 585, 115 N. W. 486, 16 
L. R. A. (N. S.) 235, 126 Am. St. Rep. 307. Contemporaneous verbal agreement 
that the maker declined to sign the note until the payee agreed to "knock off" 
the interest for the first year, cannot be allowed. Tisdale v. Mallett, 73 Ark. 431, 
84 S. W. 481. 

86. Gazoway v. Moore, Harp. 401. 

87. Knight v. W. T. Walker Bri<k Co., 23 .\pp. D. C. 519; Eaves v. Henderson, 
17 Wend. 190. In Allen v. Herrick Hanlware Co. (Tex. Civ. App.), 118 S. W. 
1157, the court said: "If it could be held that by the strict letter of the law plain- 
tifif in error should not be allowed to offer proof entitling him to credits on the 
note, because the note waa evidence of a full settlement, a court of equity would 
come to the relief of the maker of the note, and permit him to show that the note 
Wiis not intended as a full settlement between the parties, but that it had been 
agreed that there should be a further settlement, in which the maker of the note 
should have the benefit of credits claimed by him." 

88. Featherston v. Wilson, 4 Ark. 154; St. LouLs, etc., Ins. Co. v. Homer, 9 
Mete. (Mass.) 39. Or a lesser rate of interest than that stated in the note. See 
Davis V. Stout, 126 Ind. 12, 25 N. E. 862, 22 Am. St. Rep. 565. 

89. Alsop V. Goodwin, 1 Root, 196. 

90. Noe V. Hodges, 3 Humphr. 162; Cole v. Handley, 8 Smedes & M. 473; 
Pack V. Thomas, 13 Smedes & M. 11; Baugh v. Ramsey, 4 T. B. Mon. 155; 
M'Minn v. Owen, 2 Dall. 173; Hair v. Le Bronse, 10 Ala. 548; Langenberger v. 
Kraeger, 48 Cal. 147; Clark v. Hart, 49 Ala. 86. 

91. Bradley v. Anderson, 5 Vt. 152; Coe v. Wallace, 5 Blackf. 199. 

92. Cockrill v. Kirkpatrick, 9 Mo. 688. 


by verbal testimony — as tliut ii should be void unless others inter- 
ested agreed to the settlement in which it was given;"' or Wius to be 
void if certain bills should be paid at maturity;"' or wjis to be void 
or surrendered up in the event the ciuse in which it was given for a fee 
were comproiniscil,''*^ or in any other contingency."* Nor can it lu; 
shown that it was only to be [)aitl out of a particular fund or estate.^^ 

81a. As to consideration generally. —In an action 1)V the original 
payee of a negotiable instrument, or by one having notice, the (pies- 
tion of consideration may bo intjuired into."* And so parol evi- 

93. Ely V. Kill)()rn, f. Dm. r,lA; BcccIut v. Dunlap, .72 Ohio St. (M, 3.S N. E. 
795; Barnard State Hank v. Ecsler, HI) Mo. .Vpp. 217; C'hicjmo CottaRo Orjjan 
Co. V. Svvartzell, 01 Mo. App. 49(). Without proof of fraud or mi.stakc, a n«)t«' 
cx('(ruted ius an al)Sohite to |)ay eaiuiot he attaeki-d hy .showing a parol 
aKreement to tlw elTect, that the promi.s*- \v!ls conditional and that the maker 
wa.s not to [)ay the note unles.s on certain conditions. Begley v. Coinb.s (Ky.), 
87 S. W. lOSl. 

94. Penny v. Graves, 12 III. 1S7. 

95. Dale v. Pope, 4 Litt. 1(50. 

96. Holt V. Moore, f) Ala. .')21; Anderson v. Majirufler, 10 Cal. 410; Rivers v. 
Brown (Fla.), 5() So. 5r);}; Barber v. McHenry County Hedne Fence Co., 12!) 111. 
App. 4.'); Potter v. Earnest, 4.'» Ind. 4 IS; Burge v. Di.shinan, '> Ind. 272; Calhoun 
v. Davi.s, 2 Ind. .W2; Miller v. White, 7 Blackf. 4«>1 ; Thi.slcr v. Mackey, ().-. K.ui. 
4()4, 70 Pac. ;«4; Dale v. Pope, 4 Litt. Ititi; Sears v. Wright, 24 Me. 27.S; Coddard 
V. Cutts, 11 Me. 440; .\dams v. Wil.son, 12 Meto. (Miuss.) ViS; SjjrinR v. Lovett, 
11 Pick. 417; Underwood v. Simond.s, 12 Mete. ( 27.5; Rose v. Learne<l, 
14 Mass. 154; Tower v. Richard.son, (i Allen, 351; Central Sav. Bank v. O'Connor, 
132 Mich. 578, 94 N. W. 11, 102 Am. St. Rep. 433; Haverin v. Donnell, 7 Smedes 
& M. 244; Jones v. Shaw, 67 Mo. (itw; Third Nat. Bank v. Reichert, 101 Mo. 
Ajjp. 242, 73 S. W. 893; Aultman, Miller & Co. v. Hawk, 4 Nebr. (Unof.) 5.S2, 95 
N. W. 095; Brown v. Hull, 1 Den. 4(K); Cline v. Farmers' Oil Mill, 83 S. C. 204, 
05 S. E. 272; Nixon v. First State Bank (Te.x. Civ. Ai)p.), 127 S. W. 8S2, 129 S. W. 
145; Wayhind Univensity v. Boonnan, 56 Wis. 6()0; Brown v. Langley, 5 Scott 
N. R. 249; see ante, § SO. 

97. Brown v. SpofTord, 95 U. S. (5 Otto) 482 (1877); Gorrell v. Homo Life Ins. 
Co., 11 C. C. A. 240, 63 Fed. 370; Mumford v. Tolman, 157 III. 258, 41 N. E. 617; 
Hensley v. Mitchell, 147 III. App. 161; Adams v. Wilson, 12 Mete. (Mass.) 1.3S; 
Currier v. Hale, 8 Allen, 47; Ryan v. Sullivan, 128 N. Y. S. 632, 143 App. Div. 
471; Fuller v. Law, 207 Pa. St. 101, 56 AtL 333; Rawson v. Walker, 1 Stark. 361; 
Campbell v. Hodgson, Gow. 74. 

98. 1 Greenleaf on E\ndence, § 285; 2 Wharton on Evidence, § 1042; Folmar 
v. Siler, 132 Ala. 297, 31 So. 719; Ramsey v. Young, 69 Ala. 158; Cashman v. 
Harrison, 90 Cal. 297, 27 Pac. 283, citing text; Holmes v. Horn, 120 III. App. 3.59; 
First Nat. Bank v. Nugent, 99 Ind. 160; Deming Inv. Co. v. Wallace, 73 Kan. 
291, 85 Pac. 139; Spies v. Rosenstock, 87 Md. 14, 39 Am. Rep. 268; Maltz v. 
Fletcher, 52 Mich. 484; Kessler v. Clayes, 147 Mo. App. 88, 125 S. W. 799; Car- 


dence may be received, as against such original party or one having 
notice, to show a want '-^ of consideration, or failure of considera- 

rington V. Waff, 112 X. C. 115, 16 S. E. 1008; Gifford v. Fox, 2 Nebr. (Unof.) 30, 
95 N. W. 106(i; Lone Star Leather Co. v. National Bank, 12 Tex. Civ. App. 128, 
34 S. W. 297. See also post, § 174. Evidence may be given of the actual considera- 
tion for which a check was delivered though there nuxy be a written inonioniiKluni 
containing the ternw under which the check wjw given. Foxworthy v. Adams, 
i:{»J Ky. 403, 124 S. \V. :i,Sl, 27 L. R. A. (X. S.) 308. It is competent to prove by 
panji evidence that a note was given for the money of land. Davis v. 
Evan.s, 142 X. C. ACA, .55 S. E. 344; MdVters v. English, 141 X. C. 491, 54 S. E. 
417. When note six^ifies "legal services" as the consideration, it is competent 
for defendant to prcjve by parol that the agreement w:w that the payee was to 
attend to all her legal business in connection with her administration of an estate, 
and that a large amount of work remaine<l to Im* done, which he refused to do. 
Jones V. Hhea, 122 \. C. 721. 30 S. E. .34r,. When the statement of the con- 
sidi'ration is not a statement of the terms of the contmct but is the narration of a 
mere fact, pan)l evidence may be intHnluced to vary, contradict, or e\|)lain such 
Htatemr-nt. Kam|>mHiiM v. McCorrnick (Tex. Civ. App.), 99 S. W. 1147. The 
recitation of con.sid(Tati(jn is always o|)cn to explanation or contradiction. Mc- 
Court V. Pei)panl, 120 Wis. 320, 105 X. W. 809. Whenever the statement of the 
consideraticm leaves the field of mere re<'ital and enters into that of contract, as 
shown by the intention of the partit-s to Ix? gathernl from the instrument, it is 
no longer ojx'n to contnuliction by i)an)I evidence — as to a note state<l to be in 
considi-raticjn of cre«lit gnmliil by one of the parties to a tliinl person on the 
purchxs*- {»rice of nuuhinery l)<)uglit by said thinl |KTHon. McXinch v. Xorth- 
west Thresher Co., 23 Okl. .isi], 10(j I>ac. 524. Where, at the time a note was 
executed, the fiaye*' sign«l a certificate showing the state of the account between 
hiuKself and the maker at the time, and not pun>orting to contain the terms of 
the agn>«Mnent In-twcvn the partit-s as to the conditions un<l<T which the note 
w:i.s given, the i)ayee may testify !is to the un<ierstan(ling and agreement under 
which the note was execut^l. Ilaini-s v. Ciulweil, 40 Or. 229, i'At I'ac. 910. 

99. Ablxjtt V. Hendricks, 1 M. A (1. 795 (39 Eng. C. L.); Burke v. Duhmey, 
1.'.3 r. S. 22.S, 14 Sup. Ct. Hef). SIO; Indeiwrnlent Brewing A.ssn. v. Klett, 114 
111. App. 1 ; Purcell v. .Vrmour Packing Co., 4 Ga. App. 2.')3, til S. E. 13S; Small v. 
Clewley, 02 Me. 155; Aldrich v. Whitaker, 70 N. H. 027, 47 Atl. 591; Smith v. 
Dotterweich, 93 N. E. 98,5, 200 X. Y. 299, 33 L. R. A. (X. S.) 892; reversing 
judgment 116 X. Y. S. 896, 132 App. Div. 489; South Dakota Cent. R. Co. v. 
Smith, 22 S. D. 210, 110 X. W. 1120. At least in equity, it may be shown that 
the maker of a note was in fact the surety for an anomalous indorser — was an ac- 
commtxlation maker. Jennings v. Moore, 189 Mass. 197, 75 X. E. 214. Under 
the principle that want of consideration may be shown by parol, it was held in 
Bnxjk v. Latimer, 44 Kan. 431, 24 Pac. 940, 21 Am. St. Rep. 292, that parol evi- 
dence was admissible to show that a promissory note for the payment of §10,000, 
executed by a daughter to her father and made payable on demand, was in fact 
executed by the daughter and receive<l by the parent aa a mere receipt or mem- 
orandum of advancement mjuie by the parent to the child and that a partial 
understanding was ha<l at the time of its execution and delivery that payment 
thereof would never be demanded or enforced. The maker of a note may properly 


tion/ or that the consideration was ill»nal; - and the rulr forl)iddinK 
the admission of an oral agreement varying tht- trrms of a written 
contract is not viohited by permitting the defendant, in an action upon 

show that ho and tho payoo jointly purrhaswl certain property and that the note 
was ^ivcn merely fi)r the pun>OfM.' of nhowiiiK the pay(H''s interest in the proix-rty, 
as .showing that the maker reeeivwl no consideratiijn for the exeeution of the note. 
Davis V. Sterns, So Xehr. 121, 122 N. W. (572. Parol evideiiee is admissible to 
show that a certificate of dejjosit ^iveri by a bank wils in fact a loan. iState v. 
Coming State Savin^H Hank, Lit) Iowa, 79, 1 LI N. W. 500. 

1. Dial V. McKay, 150 Ala. 118, 43 S<i. 21H; Miner v. Hamilton, 152 Cal. ('.31, 
9;J Pac. 857; Pope v. Peterson, 7 Ga. App. 395, (541 S. K. 9H-I; Pideock v. J. Crouch A 
Son, 7 Ga. App. 299, Oti S. E. 971; Purcell v. Armour Packing Co., 4 Ga. App. 
2.')3, 01 S. E. 1.38; Aultnian Threshing «!t Engine Co. v. Knoll, 71 Kan. 109, 79 
Pac. 1074; Brown v. Smedley, L3t> tio, 98 N. W. 85«); Holmes v. Karris, 97 
Mo. App. .305, 71 S. VV. llt>;{!reat Northern Moulding Co. v. iionewur, 113 \. Y. 
S. ()0, 128 App. Div. S31 ; Fane v. Fitler, 223 Pa. St. .5«)8, 72 Atl. 891. 132 Am. St. 
Hep. 742; Gandy v. W.-ckerly, 220 Pa. St. 285, t)9 Atl. 8.58, 18 L. K. A. (N. S.) 
4.34, 123 Am. St. Hep. ()91; Preaa v. Vollintine, .53 Wash. 137, 101 Pac. 700. 
Evidence to show failure of consideration in a promissory note must clearly show 
that the thing on which the failuri' n-sts enten><l into the consideration of the note. 
Guthrie v. Huntington Chair Co., 1)9 W. Va. 152, 71 S. E. 14. Where notes wer(> 
given for bonds i-ssued by a company, which had no value a|)art from the ability 
of the promi.><or to i)erft>nn theuj and repres«'ntetl an im|)os.sible undertaking by an 
insolvent concern, .such facts may be shown on an i.ssue of no consideration for 
tho notes. German-American Security Co. v. McCulloch (Ky.), 89 S. W. 5. 
Upon the trial of an action on a negotiable note, given for the premium on an 
insurance policy, evidence of a parol contem[)oraneous agreement between the 
maker of the note and an agent of the payee that the |M)licy was to be delivere<l 
within a given time was, in the absence of fraud, accident, or mistake, inadmi.s.sible, 
in connection with pn)of that the policy had not been .so delivered, to .show failure 
of consideration of the note. Union Central Life Ins. Co. v. Wynne, 123 Ga. 
470, 51 S. E. 389. In an action on a note given for the price of animals sold, which 
note contained a warranty of title but did not exclude a warranty aa to soundness, 
evidence was held admissible as to a parol warranty of the seller of soundness of 
the animals; the note not expressing the whole contract, and tho warranty as to 
soundness not varying its terms. Whigham v. W. Hall & Co., 70 S. E. 23, 8 Ga. 
App. 509. But in Flemming v. Satterfield, 4 Ga. App. 351, 01 S. E. 518, it was 
held that where a promissory note is given for the purchase of a mule which is 
unambiguous and conditional and contains no warranty of the soundness of the 
mule, no express warranty can be added to the note by evidence of an express 
warranty alleged to have been made by parol contemporaneously with the execu- 
tion of the note. 

2. Corbett v. Clute, 137 N. C 540, 50 S. E. 210. Where it is alleged that the 
consideration for a note given for rent under a lease was illegal, the fact that a 
written lease was entered into would not prevent the introduction of oral evidence 
to show the conversation and the circumstances for the purpose of determining 
the real consideration. O'Connor v. Kleiman, 143 Iowa, 435, 121 N. W. 1088. 


a promissory note, to prove as a set-off an amount due from the 
plaintiff uix)n an oral contract made at the time the note was given, 
and which formed a part of its consideration.' 

And parol evidence is admissible to show that the maker of a 
promissory note executed it for the accommodation and at the re- 
quest of the payee and was not to be held personally responsible 
on the note by the payee; this shows want of consideration between 
the parties.* 

§ 81b. Delivery to payee to take effect only upon condition pre- 
cedent, or to be void upon condition subsequent. — A eoiulitional 
delivery to the payee may be shown by parol; a promissory note, 
like any other written instrument has no legal inception or valid 
existence until it has been delivered in accordance with the purpose 
and intention of the parties.^ And so, it has been held in a numl)er 

8. Owensboro Wagon Co. v. D. A. Wilson & Co., 79 Kan. 033, 101 Pac. 4; 
Brown V. Smedley, 130 Mich. 6,5, 98 X. W. H.'iO. 

4. Peterwjn v. Tillinghiwt, 192 Fcxl. 2.S7; Tohrinor v. Whit*-, 19 App. D. C. 103; 
National Citizfn.s Hank v. liowcn, 109 Minn. 473, 124 \. W. 241 ; Connui v. Clarke, 
im Minn. 4;«). 119 N. W. 214, 119 .N. W. 482. p:vi(l.-ncc i.s adniisnil)!.' t.-ndin^ 
to hHow knowhMlKc on the part of the payee of a draft o{ the character of the pajjcr 
he received and the extent to which the drawer would Ix- bound by it, namely 
that the draft wan drawn for the accommodation of the payee. Preaa v. Vollintine, 
53 Waah. 137, 101 Pac. 700. While panjl evidence will Ix; receive*] to explain that 
a proraii«or>' note wa.s exji-utj"*! by the maker for the accomnuxlation of another, 
or to U- helil jw colIat«'ral H«'<-urity, it cannot l><- re<-eive«l to <lefeat recovery thereon, 
where the paye<-, on the .strennth of the exf<-utii>n and delivery of .such note, and 
at the n'qui-st of the maker, extendi-d credit t<i a third |)arty. Willoughhy v. Ball, 
IS Okl. r>.3.5, 90 Pac. 1017. 

6. Ik-ach V. Nevin.s, 102 Ke<i. 1'29; Hunter v. First .\at. Bank, 172 Ind. 62, 
S7 .\. E. 734; Oakland Cemetery .\j«n. v. Lakin.s, 120 Iowa. 121, 101 N. W. 778; 
Hill V. Hall, 191 Ma.««. 2.'i.3, 77 \. E. 8.31; Great .N'orthem Moulding Co. v. Bone- 
wur, 113 N. Y. S. 00, 128 App. Div. .8,31 ; Pratt & Whitney Co. v. American Pneu- 
matic Tool Co., 0.3 X. Y. S. 1062, 'jO App. Div. 309, affimifxi IW X. Y. .588, .59 
X. E. 1129; Hughes v. Crooker, 148 X. C. 318, 02 S. E. 429, 128 Am. St. Hep. <J00. 
Where a note was executed at the time of an application for a life in.surance policy, 
evidence may be received of an understanding that it was delivered to show the 
applicant's gootl faith, and that it would not be binding u[)on him except that if 
the policy, when it arrived, wjls satwfactor>', and they accepted it, the note would 
be binding, it would be void. Graham v. Hemmel, 70 Ark. 140, 88 
S. W. 899. If a surety executes a note on the payee's agreement to procure the 
signature of another name thereto, and which the payee failed to do, thi.s fact 
cannot be reliwl on as a defen.s«' when sued by a purcha.ser for value, who had no 
notice of such agreement; but if the payee or obligee had notice of such condition 
or agreement, the fact of the agreement, and knowledge thereof on the part of the 


of ciises that a note may \)v delivered to the payee to take effect only 
upon a condition precedent; and that default in the fulfillment of 
such conditions may be shown by parol evidence, and will defeat 
recovery as between immediate parties i*^ and also that it may be 

obliKoe or payee, would constitute n vulid dofrnse, and it is entirely rompetent 
to show the existence of such knowleilne by parol tet*timony. Caudle v. Ford 
(Ky.), 72 S. VV. 270. In Pidcock v. J. Crouch & Son, 7 Ga. App. 229, (Mi S. E. <»7 1 . 
it was held that while it is permissible to show that a i)romissf)ry note, sinnetl by 
one or more persons and apparently complete, is not in fact com|)lete, by reiLSDn 
of the fact that it Iwus never be«'n delivere<l from one party to the other jus a finally 
complete<l contract, but that it w:ls simply left in the possession of the payee, until 
some additional person should siyii it before it should become a completJil con- 
tract, yet it is not permissible to show by parol that a note w:us delivere<l to the 
payee as a completed contract, but U|M)n a pn)mise ujion his part that he would 
Bubsecjuently secure the signature of another jhtsou thereto, where the writiuR 
is silent hh to any such jjromise (m the payee's j)art. See Etz v. Place, SI Hun, 2();<, 
30 N. Y. S. 70'). See Jamestown Business ColU'^e'n v. Allen, 172 N. Y. 291, 
04 N. E. 9r)2, 92 Am. St. Rep. 710, holdiiin (one justice di.ssentinK) that a promis- 
sory note in the usual form and actually delivere<l to the payee, although accom- 
panied by a contract in writing showing that the note wils niven for a sch«)larship 
in a business college, cannot be contnulicteil by parol evidence that the note wjls 
not to be paid if the maker should decide not to tiike instructions at the school 
and could not sell her scholarship, as the delivery of the note was not conditional, 
not to become effective until the hapiM'ninn of s(jme condition jjreceflent, but wius 
an absolute delivery which cannot be tiefeated by tin- hapj)oninK t)f any subse- 
quent contingency. 

6. Graham v. Rcmmel, 70 Ark. 1 10, S8 S. W. S99; Heitman v. Commercial 
Bank, G Ga. App. oS4, 05 S. E. fjiK); Benton v. Martin, 52 X. Y. 574; Williams v. 
First Nat. Bank of Syracuse, 45 App. Div. 239, GO N. Y. Supp. 1105, Am. St. 
Rep. 70; Persons v. Hawkins, 41 App. Div. 171, .58 N. Y. Supp. 831; Tra<l«t- 
men's Nat. Bank v. Curtis, 3S App. Div. 240, 57 N. Y. Supp. 121; Benjamin v. 
Ver Nooy, 36 App. Div. 5S1, 55 N. Y. Supp. 790, 93 Am. Dec. 540; Simmons v. 
Thompson, 29 App. Div. 559, 51 N. Y. Supp. lOlS, 80 Am. Dec. 332, citing 
Higgins V. Kidgeway, 153 N. Y'. 130, 47 N. E. 32; Andrews & Co. v. Hess, 20 
App. Div. 194, 46 N. Y'. Supp. 790; Juilliard v. Chaffee, 92 N. Y. 529; (^uinlan 
V. Fairchild, 76 Hun, 312, 27 N. Y. Supp. 689; Elwell v. Turncy, 39 Wash. 615, 
81 Pac. 1047. See ante, § 68. There is a plain difference between allowing proof 
by parol or other extrinsic evidence of the nonperformance of a condition precedent 
as to which the writing is silent, and allowing such proof of the nonperformance of 
a condition stated in writing to have been performed, or to have been agreed upon 
as unnecessary to the final utterance of the writing as a presently operative con- 
tract. Heitman v. Commercial Bank, 6 Ga. App. 584, 65 S. E. 590. In an action 
to recover on a promissory note, parol evidence was admissible to show that the 
parties had made an oral agreement for the purchase of a commodity in pursuance 
of which the note was given, that under such agreement the payee of the note was 
to make its maker a certain loan, and that the loan had not been in fact made. 
Kessler & Co. v. Parelius, 107 Minn. 224, 119 N. W. 1069. 


shown by parol that at the time a note was made it was agreed that 
it should be held for nothing on the happening of a certain event 
or on the nonfulfillment of a certain condition.' But unless such 
event operated a failure of consideration, we cannot perceive upon 
what principle such a view could be taken.* 

§ 81c. Parol evidence is admissible to show that parties to bills 
ant! notes, apparently otherwise, are really in privity with each 
other; ^ and as l)etween parties to show their real relations to each 
other; "* and if there be a latent ambiguity to explain it.'^ And if 
the instrument b<* so obscurely written, or so mutilated or erased 
as to render its meaning uncertain, it is admissible to ascertain its 
terms.'- There are also some cases in which patent ambiguities 
in.iy be resolved by parol testimony, which are elsewhere considered.'^ 

7. Dial V. MfKay. IT/) Ala. 1 IS, A^i So. 21.S; The I)«nv«r Hn-winK Co. v. hurcis, 
't Colo. Apj). :i\\, IS Viw. S:H; .\iMork v. Spr:i«u»-. 200 .\. Y. .'JIH), 1K{ .N. K. llOf), 
nvcn^iriK I IS .\. Y. S. 1127, 1:M Apj). Div. «H0; Ostramhr v. Snyder, 73 Hun, 
:{7S, 2»i .\. Y. Supp. 2»)3; Hiiwinn'T v. Cluitcrnan, 6 lleink. 277; Clark v. Duchc»- 
ricau, 20 Utah, 97, 72 Pac. 3:J1 ; liowoU v. Ware, 175 Fed. 742. It may be shown by 
parol that the note wa.s not execufe<l until after the ji^wment.s between the parties 
were (ujule, arul it never W!ts inteiuhtl to be in«)re than .S4'curity for anotlu-r anre<v 
riieiit, and that surh aure^-inent h:Ls Iwen jxTforined. Oakland Cemetery Assn. 
V. l^ikins, 12«i Iowa. 121, 101 N. \V. 778. 

8. S-^' anlf, § (>S. 

9. §§ 17."^, 170. 

10. Ilouck V. Graham, lOCy Ind. lO.**; pout, § 710. But in the hands of one wlio 
takes the pafHT for value Ix-fore maturity without actual notice of any defect 
then-iti the law presumes, and the holder ha« a ri^ht to iLSsume, that the relalion.s 
to the pa|x'r of every party whose name a|)|><>arN on it are |)reci.s«'ly what they 
apiK-ar to l)e. Cheever v. V. S. & L. K. K. Co., I.'jO .\. Y. TjO, 41 N. K. 701, Tj-j 
Am. St. Hep. tVJC; Davis v. Hly, 32 App. Div. 124, .'j2 .\. Y. Sui)p. 201); Schram v. 
Werner, S.", Hun, 21(3, 32 X. Y. Sujjp. IW.'); Marsh v. Chown, 104 Iowa, .'i.'jti, 73 
\. W. 10-MJ; Ilanlester v. Tate, 85 Mo. .\pp. 024. Evidence may be received of 
(•(•ntemp«jrar>' oral a(creement*» that the maker of a note executed it as an accom- 
tiKxlation, or to l)o held a« collateral security, but not to defeat recovery thereon. 
Wiliounhby v. Hall, ISOkl. .W."), 90 Pac. 1017. 

11. Wlwirton on Evidence, § 9.')0. 

12. Paine v. Kinnold, 43 Mich. .341; County of Dea Moines v. Hinckley, 62 
Iowa, »V42. .\nd ujxjn the sjime principle it is settlwi that the meaning of ab- 
breviations may be explain(xl by parol. S<'o Lane v. Union Nat. Bank, 3 Ind. 
App. 21H), 29 N. E. 013; Merrill v. Syp<Tt, 0.') .\rk. .51, 44 S. W. 462. 

13. §§ 418, 419. Thomjwon v. Thome, 83 Mo. App. 241; Keokuk Falls Imp. 
Co. v. Kinji.sland & Douglas Mfg. Co., .') Okl. 32, 47 Pac. 484; Carr v. Jones, 29 
Wiish. 7M, (i9 Pac. 64(». Where the su.scepliijility of language in a note to a double 
construction makes it ambiguous or obscure, a resort to parol testimony is neces- 


Where a note was executed by several persons jointly and severally 
promising to pay a certain amount, parol evidence is inadmissible 
on a claim that they were severally and not jointly liable;*^ but 
between privy parties a mistake in the execution of a written in- 
strument — as for instance where the makers of a note intentled it 
should be several as well as joint, but it was drawn only as a joint 
note — may be rectified in a court of ('(luity, and the true intention 
shown. '^ And as between them, if the party executed the instru- 
ment supposing himself liable for the amount, when in fact he was 
not, it is admissible to show it, tlie evidence going to prove want of 
consideration."^ And if by mistake the instrument were given for 
too large an amount the better opinion is that it may be shown, 
for as to the mistaken excess there is partial want of consideration.'^ 
And, in general, parol eviilence is admissible l)etween the original 
parties to show fraud, accident, or mistake in the creation of the 

sary, to show in what the lanRuajce usmhI wjw intondtxl by the parties to the 
instrument. Ikrtig-Smythe Co. v. Bonsack Lunibi-r Co., 112 Mo. App. 259, 8G 
S. W. 870. See Ltfller Co. v. Dickorson, 1 Ga. App. 03, 57 S. E. 911 (as to 
ambiRuity in date of maturity); Southern R. Co. v. Cofer, 119 .Via. 505, 43 Sfj. 
102 (a.s to place of delivery in bills of lading). 

14. City DeiK)sit Hank v. C.reen. 130 Iowa, 3S4, 100 N. \V. 942; Parker v. 
Mayer, So S. C. 419, 07 S. E. 5.59, 137 Am. St. Hep. 912. 

15. Hawstone v. Parr, 3 Russ. 424, 529; Chitty on Bills, 191 [•100], 213, [♦184]; 
Benjamin's Chalmers' Digest, 252; Hopkins v. Insurance Co., 57 Iowa, 204. In 
Massaehusetts, held: that contemi)oraneous written agreement of a collateral and 
personal character not admissible in evidence for the pur{X)se of defeating recovery 
on note. Woods Sons Co. v. Schaefer, 173 443, .')3 N. E. 881, 73 Am. St. 
Rep. 305. But by the .same court it has been held that a paper writing directed to 
payee and holder of a note and signed by person who has indorsed in blank before 
delivery and stating that he is an indorser and waives demand, protest and notice 
is admissible in evidence for purpose of showing that he understood that he was an 
indorser. State Trust Co. v. Owen Paper Co., 102 Mass. 150; First Nat. Bank v. 
Watkins, 154 Mass. 385, 28 N. E. 275. Same principle applicable to ownership of 
instrument. Taylor v. Smith, 116 N. C. 531, 21 S. E. 202. Evidence of an oral 
agreement not generally admissible. Carrington v. Waff, 112 N. C. 114, 16 S. E. 
1008; Hemrich v. Wist, 19 Wash. 516, 53 Pac. 710; Bryan v. Duflf, 12 Wix-sh. 233, 
40 Pac. 936, 50 Am. St. Rep. 899; Remington v. Dental Mfg. Co., 101 Wis. 307, 
77 N. W. 178. In such case the mistake must be mutual. See Deering & Co. v. 
Russell, 5 N. Dak. 319, 65 N. W. 691; Johnson v. Willard, 83 Wis. 420, 53 N. W. 
776; Lee v. Percival, 85 Iowa, 639, 52 X. W. 543. 

16. Southall v. Rigg, 11 C. B. 481; Reardon v. Moriarty, 30 La. Ann. 120; 1 
Parsons on Notes and Bills, 201. 

17. Claxon v. Demaree, 14 Bush, 173. See §§ 179, 201. But see Downs v. 
Webster, Brayt. 79; 2 Parsons on Notes and Bills, 505. 


instrument.'* Also to set up a verbal agreement, by performance of 
which the written contract has been discharged. ^^ 

§ 81d. As to collateral matters. — A further exception to the 
general rule is recognized in many cases, by which, as between 
the parties or as to one taking with notice, parol evidence may be 
received of collateral matters affecting or being part of the contract 
and which do not interfere with the terms of the written contract.-^ 
So, it may be shown how the note should be paid,^' as that it should 

18. Roo V. KLser, 62 Ark. 92, 34 S. W. .534; Epps v. WarinR, 93 Ga. 705, 20 S. E. 
6^1'); Mizcll Live Stork Co. v. Bunks (C.ii. Ajh).), 73 S. E. 410; White v. Smith, 
7'.» Klin. 90, 9S I'uc. HM'r, I)«>nnin>; Inv. Co. v. W;ilhu-t', 73 Kiin. 291, S-'j Puc. 139; 
Phd-nix Ina. Co. v. Owens, SI .Mo. Ai)p. 201; Philliiw v. Meily, 100 Pu. St. 530; 
Karner v. Rosa, 43 Tex. Civ. App. .>12, 95 S. W. 40. 

19. In First Nut. Hunk v. Watkins, l.'>4 Milss. .3S5, 23 N. E. 275, it was held 
thut an oral aurwinent o|)oratod at once, and in effeet discharRod the defendant 
from liuhiUty on the note, while in Hayes v. .Mien, ItK) Mjuss. 2.S(), 35 N. E. H52, it 
WiW decideil that "It is no defen.s<' to an action on a promissory note for a valid 
consideration, that subsetjueiit to the making and delivery of the not<', an indepen- 
dent oral aKre«'ment w:ls made betwe«'n the parties that the defendant would .sell, 
and the plaintiff wouhl huy, on Januar)- 1st next ensuinK, certain shares of the 
capital stock of a coriH)ration at a certain price per share and that the note should 
be taken as payment pro tanlo for the shares." See Rogers v. Bedell, 97 Tenn. 
240, 30 S. W. KXMj. In this connection, court held: Evidence that a check which 
h:ul been di.shonore<i w:ls sul)s«'«iuently delivered by the payee to another person, 
under an jmre«'ment that the former should not be iMJund u|K)n it, because of his 
indorsement made Iwfore it wius di.shonored, Ls ailmLs-sible to wt juside the elTeet 
of th«' previous indors4-ment. Ei)ps v. Waring, 93 (la. 7r)5, 20 S. E. 045; Truman 
V. Bishop, Ki Iowa, 091, .")() N. W. 27S; H<»ward v. Stratton. M Cal. 4S7. Parol 
testimony is admissible, in an action u[X)n a promissor>' note, to show that it wfis 
given to secure the p<'rformance of an agreemc'nt whereby, in consideration of the 
transfer of certain lands by the payee to the maker, the latter should support the 
payt-*' during the remainder of his life, and that the maker had ixrforme*] the 
conditions of the agre<'ment. CiitTord v. Fosc, 2 Nebr. (I'nof.) 30, 95 \. W. 1000. 

20. Crooker v. Hamilton, 3 (la. App. 190, 59 S. E. 722; Wood.s«jn v. Beck. 151 
N. C. 144, 05 S. E. 751 ; s«><' /xw/, §§ 1.5<j, 133H. Parol evidence of a collateral agree- 
ment not purixjrting to Ik- in writing is not excluded by th<' fact that in a written 
instrument such collateral agreement is recognized. Anderson v. Thero, 139 
Iowa, 032, 1 IS N. W. 47. Where a warehouse receipt was pledged to secure a note, 
the phxlgee may be allowed to testify that there was an agreement that if the note 
was not paid at maturity, the 8uri)lus arising from the sale of the property pledged 
should be cn>«lited on another indebtedness. Lewis v. First Nat. Bank, 46 Or. 
1S2, 7S Pac. 990. When the promiss«jry note is complete in itself, parol evidence 
cannot be received to add further terms to its consideration. Hightower v. Henry, 
85 Miss. 470, 37 So. 745. 

21. Louisville Tobacco Warehouse O. v. Stewart (Ky.), 70 S. W. 285; Evans 


be paid out of the proceeds of tin- sale of Cfrt;iin property,"" from 
money earned on a contract for work upon which purchased machin- 
ery would be used,''' or out of the first money earned by the maker 
as agent for the payee, and that money so earned had been applied 
on unsecured advances of tlu^ maker.-^ It may be shown that at 
the time the note was given, the maker directed that any deposit 
he might thereafter make should be credited on the note, although 
l)efore its maturity,'^ antl that, when; the parties to the note were 
partners, it was agreed, that if the losses of the business amoimtetl 
to a certain sum, the liability of the maker of the note should be 
released, and that such loss had (x'curred.-*^ 



§82. W(> have now to consider: 1st, the date; 2d, the amount; 
'.U\, tiic time of payment; Ith, the place of payment; Sth, name 
of the tlraw(T or makcT; (ith, name of the drawee (if it be a bill); 
7th, name of tlu' payee; Sth, the terms of negotiability; Oth, the 
words of consideration; lOth, the words of advice; 11th, the state- 
ment of account; and 12th, the attestation. 

§ 83. The date.-" — In the first place, as to the date, this is usually 
WTitten in the right-hand corner of the instrument; but no date is 
essential to the validity of a bill or note;^ and it is of no consequence 
on what portion of the paper it is wTitten.^ If there be no date, 

V. Freeman, 142 N. C. 61, 54 S. E. 847. Where notes are by their terms payable 
in money, evidence cannot be received tending to show an agreement between the 
original parties to the notes that payment should be made in labor. Vrandenburp 
V. Johnson, 3 Nebr. (IJnof.) 327, 91 N. W. 496. 

22. SafTer v. Lambert, HI 111. App. 410, the court saying that such an agree- 
ment is equivalent to a direction by the debtor as to application. 

23. Ramsay & Bro. v. Capshaw, 71 Ark. 408, 75 S. W. 479. 

24. New York Life Ins. Co. v. Smucker, 106 Mo. App. 304, 80 S. W. 278. 
26. Roe V. Bank of Versailles, 167 Mo. 406, 67 S. W. 303. 

26. Fane v. Fitler, 223 Pa. St. 568, 72 Atl. 891, 132 Am. St. Rep. 742. 

27. As to presumption of date of indorsement, see post, § 728. 

. 28. Michigan Ins. Co. v. Leavenworth, 30 Vt. 11; Mechanics, etc., Bank v. 
Schuyler, 7 Cow. 337; Byles [*74], 166; Edwards, 150; Bayley, 21; Story on Bills, 
§ 37; Drake v. Rogers, 32 Me. 524; Vandeveer v. Ogden, 1 Pen. (N. J.) 67. 
29. Shepherd v. Graves, 14 How. 505. 


it will be considered as dated at the time it was made,^° and parol 
evidence is admissible to show from what time an undated instru- 
ment was intended to operate,^^ or to show that there was a mistake 
in the date.^^ If dated, it will be presumed to have been executed 
on the day it bears date.'^ If untlated, but containing a reference 
to date, it will date from delivery .'•' When a note without date is 
made fur another's accommodation, the maker authorizes him to 
fill up the date as he sees fit.^^ An indorsee has been allowed to prove 
against the maker a mistake in the date of a note, though by such 
proof the maker was cut off from a defense valid as to the payee.^^ 
But a maker would not be admitted to prove a different date as 
against an indorsee for value, who relied on its apparent date.'^ A 
mistaken date may be rectified in eciuity. ** Frima facie, an undated 
indorsement upon a note will b<! held to have been made as of the date 
of the note.'^-' 

§84. When the paper is payable at a specified time after date, 
it is ahnost indispensable that the date should appear on its face; 
for otherwis*', if it be a bill, the drawee cannot tell when it falls due, 
nor can an indorsee tell whether it be a bill or note. Nor can the 
holder know when to present it for payment, nor when it will be 
considered ovenliie. When tlie bill or note is payable at sight, or on 
<lemand, or on a certain day, the d:ite is not so material; but to avoid 
difficulty, it should never be omitted.^ And it has been questioned 

30. Ciilcs V. I^mrnr, Muulc A S. 7.'?; D«' hi Coiirtitr v. liollamy, 2 Show. 422; 
S«'ldfnrulKt' v. Ojnnubh', 32 Intl. M'i; Cowinn v. Altrniin, 71 N. Y. 441; FirHt 
Nat. Bank v. Hunt, 2fj Mo. App. 174, citing the text; Button v. Bt-lding, 22 App. 
Div. 618, 48 N. Y. Supp. 981. 

31. Davi.s V. Jonps, 25 L. J. C. P. 91. 17 C. B. 62,5 (84 Eng. C. L.); Richardson 
V. Kllft, 10 Trx. IIH); l>ean v. Ix>zardi, 27 Mich. 424; Cowing v. Altman, 71 N. Y. 
411; Thomp.son on liills, 37. 

32. Drake v. Rogers, 32 Me. 524; Biggs v. Piper, 86 Tenn. 589; Paige v. Carter, 
61 Cal. 4S9. 

33. Kinsley v. Sami)«on, 10() 111. 571; ante, §65; Gage v. Anesilly, 57 Mo. 
App. 111. 

34. Armitt v. Breame, 2 Ld. Raym. 1076; Styles v. Wardlc, 4 B. & C. 908. 

36. Androscoggin Bank v. Kimball, 10 Cush. :i73; Shultz v. Payne, 7 La. Ann. 

36. Drake v. Rogers, 32 Me. 524; Germania Bank v. Distler, 4 Hun, 633. 

37. Huston v. Young, 33 Me. 85. 

38. Paysant v. Ware, 1 Ala. 160. 

39. Do<ld V. Doty, 98 111. 393. 

40. Story on NoU-s, § 48. 



whether or not th<> druvvec mi^ht not rcasoniihly refuse to accept 
or pay an undated bill, on account of enil)arrassnients, in respect 
to remedy and evidence, to which he might be subjected. ^' 

§ 85. Ante-dating and post-dating. — Bills, checks, and notes 
are sometimes post-dated or ante-dated for purposes of conveni- 
ence; '^ and the fact that they are negotiated prior to the tlay of 
date is not a suspicious curcumstance against which parties must 
guard. "*' The indorsee of a bill which was post-dated, and indorsed 
by the payee, who died the day before the day of date, was hel<l in 
an English case to have derived title through the indorser, and en- 
titled to recover against the drawer,'*^ and this case has been foUowetl 
in the United States."*^ So if a note bear date as of a time before 
the maker became of age, or as of a time when the maker wa.s dis- 
qualifietl by being a feme covert, it may be shown, in answer to the 
plea of infancy or coverture, that the period of its actual date or 
delivery was when no such incapacity or disqualification existetl.'* 
And if the Ijill (^r note be ante-dated or post-dated as of a time when 
it would be valid, it may be shown that it was datcnl or delivered 
at a time when the party had no capacity to enter into the contract, 
or that it came within the interdiction of a statute.'' And whenever 
there is a false date to evade the law, the instrument is void as to 
all parties having notice.'* If the date does not correspond with 
the declaration, tlu> discrepancy must be explained.'^ But where it 

41. Story on Bills, § 37. 

42. Gray v. Wood, 2 Ilarr. & J. 328; Richter v. Selin, 8 Serg. & R. 425; Mc- 
Sparran v. Nccly, 91 Pa. St. 315; I'nion Bethel v. Sheriff, 33 La. Ann. 14(51; 
Frazier v. Troy Print Co., 24 Hun, 281. But one of a firm of attorneys cannot 
post-date a check. Foster v. Mackreth, L. R., 2 Exch. 103. See Bank of Houston 
V. Day, 145 Mo. App. 410, 122 S. W. 756, as to a statute which seemed to 
contemplate instruments which are ante-dated or post-dated by the parties in 
accordance with a mutual agreement to that effect, as is frequently done, and de- 
clares that they are not invalid because of such fact, provided no illegal or fraudu- 
lent purpose is intended. 

43. Brewster v. McCardel, 8 Wend. 478; Edwards on Bills, 151; Walker v. 
Geisse, 4 Whart. 252; McFall v. Murray, 4 Kan. App. 554, 45 Pac. 1100. 

44. Pasmore v. North, 13 East, 517. 

45. Brewster v. McCardel, 8 Wend. 478. 

46. Pasmore v. North, 13 East. 517; Story on Notes, § 48. 

47. Bayley v. Taber, 5 Mass. 286. 

48. Serle v. Norton, 9 M. & W. 309; Byles on Bills [*75], 168; Edwards, 151. 
See Vail v. Van Doren, 45 Nebr. 450, 63 N. W. 787. 

49. Fitch V. Jones, 5 El. & Bl. 238; Fanshawe v. Peet, 2 H. & N. 1. 


is alleged that a note was made on a certain day (and not that it 
bore date on that day) it is not a fatal variance that it bears date 
on another.^ When a person agrees to become a party to a note, 
and the payee takes it on that assurance, the signature, though 
actually signed long after the emission of the note, will relate back 
to its date, and bind accordingly.^^ And in general, time is computed 
in respect to an ante-dated or post-dated note with reference to the 
actual date it bears.^^ 

;j 86. Secondly, as to the amount or sum payable.— This is 
usually spccilicd in figures in the upper, or lower, U-lt-hand corner of 
the instrument, as well a.s in writing in the body of it. But these 
marginal figures are really not a part of the instrument, but merely a 
memorandum of the amoimt." They do not seem, in general, to have 
been considered among merchants as of the same effect and value as 
the mention of the sum contained in the body of the l)ill. The first 
model of a bill (jf exchange preserved to us, and which dates from the 
year a. d. biSl, does not possess them, though it does jwssess the 
votum or invocation with which merchants' bills used generally to 
commence, and which usually preceded the figures. The marginal 
figures were probably added at a very «'arly date in order that the 
amount of the bill might strike the eye immediately, and was in fact 
a note, index, or summary of the contents of the bill which followed." 
Where a difference appears between the words and iigures, evidence 
cannot be received to explain it; but the words in the body of the 
paper control; " and if there is a difference l>etween printed and 

50. Coxon V. Lyon, 2 Ciimph. :«)7; Smith v. lionl, 2 I)<jwl. & L. 7.09. 

61. HarrinKtnn v. Hmwn, 77 N. Y. 72. Stn? also MoicH v. Bird, 11 MaaH. 436; 
McNaiiKht V. McClauKhry, 42 N. Y. 22; Pauly v. Murray, 110 Cal. 13, 42 Pac. 

62. Lure v. ShafT, 70 Ind. l.'')2. 

63. C'.aminl v. I/wis, 10 Q. B. Div. 30, 37 Eng. 375; IMm v. Hammol, 134 
Ahi. t>.j2, 32 So. KKH), 92 Am. St. Rep. .52, quoting text ; Sexton v. Barrio, 102 111. 
App. 586; Hollrn v. Davi.s, .59 Iowa, 444, 43 Am. Rep. 690; Commonwealth v. 
Emigrants' Ins. Co., 98 Mass. 12; Smith v. Smith, 1 R. L 398; Chestnut v. Chest- 
nut. 104 Va. 539, 52 S. E. 348, 2 L. R. A. (N. S.) 879. See pout, § 1499a, and notes. 

54. C.arrard v. I^wLs, supra; Marius, P. 34; Beawes, § 193; Stor>' on Bills, § 42. 

55. Prim v. Hammel, 134 Ala. 652, 32 So. 1000, 92 Am. St. Rep. 52; 
Payne v. Clark, 19 Mo. 152; Riloy v. Dickons, 19 111. 30; Moars v. Graham, 
8 Blackf. 144; Saundorson v. Pi|)er. 5 Bing. X. C. 425; Fisk v. McNeal, 23 Ncbr. 
728, citing the text. In Smith v. Smith, 1 R. I. 39S, it appeared a bill bore the 
marginal figures "$175.94," and on its face called for the payment of "three 
hundred and Heventy-five 96-100," expressed as indicated. The clerk of the 


written words, th.- written must control.^ If the words are so ol>- 
scureiy written or printed :is to be indistinct, the figures in the margin 
bay be referred to to explain them/^ If by inadvertence the amount 
is expressed in figures only, it will suffice.^ 

§ 86a. Marginal figures of amount, with blank amount in body 
of instrument. The fact that an iiuiount is stut.d in the margin of a 
note, both in words an<l figures, d(M-s not dispense with the necessity 
of expressing clearly in the instrument the amount for which it is 
made,^^ an.l though the figures are in the margin of the pap<T, so 
long U the amount is left blank in the body of the instrument, there 
can be no recovery thereon.^ 

bank whore it waa loft for discount, obscrvinR the difforonro Ix-lwoon the nuirKinul 
r.Kiinw :m(l th.- words in the hcKlv, chunRfMl the nuirninal fiRiiro I to ft 3, thereby th.-ni. Th.- n.urt said: "We do not think the nuirKinnl notution ron- 
Btitutes any part of the bill. It b^ simply a menjoraii.luin or abri.lnuient of the 
contents of the bill for the e.)nvenienee of referenee. The rontraet is perfeet with- 
out it. If this is so, ftny alteration in the t.Kures cannot avoid the eontraet. b«- 
cause it is no alteration, either material or immaterial, in th.- contract." Chitty 
on Bills 1*1 -)()!, 17:^ 

56. 1 Tarsons on Notes and Hills. 2S. 

57. Hiley V. Dickens, 19 111. 20; Corgan v. Frew, 39 III. 31; Chitty on Hills 

1*1 t'.)l, 172. 

68. Sweetzer v. Kren.h, 13 Mote. (Mass.) 2132; Petty v. Heispol, 31 I <-x. K.D; 
Corgan v. Frew, 39 III. 31, whore there was in the margin "$:A1^)" and m th.> 
body "five hundred," and it was held to mean "dollars." In Louisiana it is pro- 
vided by the Revi.sed Statutes of 1S70, as f.)llows: "Sec. 319. No bill of oxchanRo, 
promis.sorv note, or other oblipition for the payment of money, miuie withm the 
State, shall be received as eviden«-e of a debt, when the whole sum shall be ex- 
pressed in fiKures, unless the same shall be a<-comi)anied by proof that it wtus Riven 
for the sum therein expre.s.sed. The cents or fractional parts of a dollar may be 
in figures." In a case in which the amount in fiKures preceded the date of ma- 
turity and promise to pay, it wm held to be suthcient. Strickland v. Ilolbrook, 

75 Cal. 26S. 

59 Chestnut V. Chestnut, 104 Va. 5.39, 52 S. E. 348; 2 L. R. A. (X. S.) 879, 
citing text. Compare Witty v. Mut. Life Ins. Co., 123 Ind. 411, 24 N.^ E. 141, 
in which it was held that if the maker of a note promises to pay "dollars," but the 
number of dollars in the body is left blank, and figures in the margin state the 
number of dollars, the marginal figures should be taken as the obligation. 

60. Norwich v. Hyde, 13 Conn. 279; Hollen v. Davis, .59 Iowa, 444. Where it 
was obviously the purpose of the parties that the body of the note should contain 
the complete promise of payment, the marginal figures will be regarded as merely 
a memorandum for convenience of reference, and no part of the note itself; and 
while the amount to be paid remains unstated, the writing does not constitute a 
note, and cannot be recovered upon as such. Vinson v. Palmer, 45 Fla. 630, 34 
So. 276, citing text. 


If it had really been the intention of the parties to the paper that 
the sum for which it was executed should have been stated therein, 
there is implied authority to the holder to fill the blank accordingly 
to an amount not exceeding the limitation of the figures on the mar- 
gin.^' Where the word "dollars" is left out, or the dollar-mark is 
omitted, they will nevertheless be supplied in this country ,*2 where, 
under the like circumstances, "pounds" would be supplied in B^ng- 
laiid.*''' Where " thee hundred dollars" was expressed in a note, it was 
left to a jury to say whether or not "three, etc.," was intended,*^^ and 
a note for "the sum of fifty-two, 25-l(M)," was held to tlenote, beyond 
(juestion, that the fraction meant wius "dollars." ^•' So where the 
note was for "one hundred and ninety-one, fifty cents," the word 
dollars was supplied." 

§ 87. The term " dollars."— When the term "dollars" is u.sed in 
my security for money given in any of the I'nited States, it is under- 
toiwl to mean dollars "of the lawful money of the I'liited States;" 
iiid extraneous evidence will not be permitted as a general rule to 
-:ive it a different signification."^ But un<ler jx-culiar circumstances, 
^uch as arose during the existence of the ('onfed«Tate States, when 
tin' term "dollars" was applied to ( 'onfederate currency in all circles, 
parol or other evidence will l»e jjermittiKl to explain the true meaning 
and intent with which it was <'mployeti."* Thus, in a ciuse before tlu; 

61. Hank of Commonwpjilth v. Curry, 2 niirin, 112; Hunk of LiincHtonr v. 
I'ctiick, .') Mon. ■J.'i; Norwich Hnuk v. Hy<l«', lA Conn. 270. S<'<> /x>.s/, § 14:{. 

62. Coruiin v. Fn-w. :«» 111. .11;*- v. Kay, 124 111. App. l.iti; Williiini.son 
V. Smith, 1 Coldw. 1; .\I<-C4)y v. Cilrnorf. 7 Ohio St. 2»1.S; .Miirrill v. Hiiridy, 17 
Mo. Mn't; Ccmlbroth v. I'urinlon. L'y M«-. 4«i«J; Swiitzrr v. Fn'nch, i:5 .Mete. (Miu<.s.) 
2tV2; .Northrop v. Sjinlwrn, 22 Vt. 43.'!; Ikxith v. Wiillnr*-, 2 lloot, 247; Hiirrnan v. 
Howe, 27 Gratt. (»77; Statr v. Sohwtuiz, (>4 \Vi.H. 4:V2. 

63. Hex V. Klliott, 1 I>earh C. L. ITft, 2 luwt P. C. <Jol; Phipps v. Tanner, 
:{ C. iV H. 4S.S. S«-<', (iTile, §70. 

64. Hurnhani v. All.n, 1 Gray, 496. 
66. .Murrill v. Hiimiy, 17 Mo. 4(Mt. 

66. H.':u-(Woy v. Hill, Gl 111. liTA. 

67. Bank v. Supor\LsorH, 7 Wall. 26; ThorinRton v. Smith, 8 Wall. 12; Omo- 
hunilro v. Crump, 18 Gratt. 7(V); I^ohman v. Crouch. 19 Gratt. .'i21; Smith v. 
Walker, 1 Call, 24; Commonwoalth v. H«'autnarrhai.s, 3 Call, 107; Wilcoxen v. 
Itcynoldn, 46 Ala. .')'29; HiRhtower v. .Maull, 'A) Ala. 495; Stewart v. Salamon, 94 
r. S. r4 Otto), 4:W. 

68. l»hrnan v. Crourh, 19 Gratt. 331 ; ThorinKton v. Smith, 8 Wall. 12; Donley 
V. lin.iall, 32 Tex. 43; Stewart v. Salamon, 94 l'. S. (4 Otto) 434; Confederate 
Note Case, 19 Wall. 548; WilminRton, etc., R. Co. v. King, 91 U. S. (1 Otto) 3. 


United States Supremo Court, involvinR the legal effect of a note for 
$10,000, dated Montgomery, Ala. (whieli was in the Confi-derate 
States during the war), November 28, 1864, Chief Justice Chase, de- 
livering the opinion of the court, said: "It is quite clear that a con- 
tract to pay dollars, made between citizens of any State of the Union, 
while maintaining its constitutional relations with the national govern- 
ment, is a contract to pay lawful nioney (jf the United States, and 
cannot be modified or explained by parol eviilence. But is it ecpially 
clear, if in any other country coins or notes denominated dollars 
should be authorized, of different value from the coins or notes which 
are current here under that name, that, in a suit upon a contract to 
pay dollars made in that country, evidence would be admitted to 
prove what kind of dollars were intended, and if it should turn out 
that foreign dollars were meant, to prove their etjuivalent value in 
lawful money of the United States. Such evidence does not modify 
or alter the contract. It simply explains an ambiguity which, under 
the general rules of evidence may be removed by parol evidence." "^ 
But the same tribunal has held that in the ab.sence of parol testimony 
it would be presumed that a note payable in one of the Confederate 
States during the war, in "dollars," was presumptively payable in 
lawful money of the United States.^" In such cases the Supn-nie 
Court of the United States holds that the sum payable in actual 
money must be asc(>rtained by the value in coin, or legal currency of 
the United States, at the time when, and place wIutc, the note was 
made, of the Confederate note equal in nominal amount to the number 
of dollars specified.^^ 

§ 88. Thirdly, as to the time of payment. — Bills and notes are 
usually drawn payable at a specified time after date, or after sight, 
or at sight."- Sometimes they are made payable on demanil, or no 

69. ThorinRton v. Smith, 8 Wall. 12. Sec Cook v. Lillo, 103 U. S. (13 Otto) 
793. In Now York hoUl, that it was competent for an expert in handwriting to 
explain a provision, that might be construed to mean January or July. See 
Drcsler v. Hard, 127 N. Y. 235, 27 N. E. 823. Following the principle that latent 
ambiguity can be explained by parol testimony, it has been held that the word 
''duplicate," as used in a note, can be explained as performing a similar office to 
that with which it is generally coupled in foreign bills of exchange. See McCann 
V. Preston, 79 Md. 223, 28 Atl. 1102. 

70. The Confederate Note Case, 19 Wall. 548. 

71. Stewart v. Salamon, 94 U. S. (4 Otto) 434 (1876). 

72. Story on Rills, § 50. In Martin v. Lewis, 30 Gratt. 672, the bill was dated 
August 20, 1866, and was drawn payable "on the Ist January, 1867." A note 


time is specified, in which case on demand is understood.^^ If the 
time of payment be left blank, as for instance if the instrument be 

payable " months after date," the like rule would apply.' ^ A 

note promising to pay when the maker can make it convenient has 
been held payable within a reasonable time; '^ and it seems that notes 
payable within a reasonable time are generally regarded as negotiable 
in the United States, the law fixing a definite limit to the period to l)e 

dated on March 25, 1904, and payable on "the Ist day of November," without 
B[H'<-ifyinK a year, i.s, in the alisenee of anything in the instrument requiring a 
contran.- con.struftion, to Ik- oonHtrued iw maturinR on the Ist day of November 
of the year tmme<l. l^-Hler C'«». v. Di.kerson, 1 da. App. 03, 57 S. E. 911 (1907). 

73. Firnt .Nut. v. Hunt, 2.', Mo. App. 171, citinK the text; CoUins v. 
Trotter, Si Mo. 27.^, citinK the te.xt; Libby v. Mikelborn, 2.S Minn. 3S; Converse v. 
Johnson, 14t) Mass. ll*; Hall v. Toby, 1 10 Pa. St. HIS; Ku.s\vell Mf^. Co. v. Hudson, 
72 CJa. 25; ThomiW)n v. Ketehunj, S John.s. is'.); Herriek v. Hennett, S Johns. 374; 
Caylord v. Van I.oan, 15 Wend. 30S; Cornell v. Moulton, 3 Den. 12; Keyes v. 
Fenstermaker, 24 Cal. 32<>; Freeman v. Ross, 15 Ga. 252; Kendall v. Calvin, 15 
Me. 151; Porter v. Porter, 51 Me. 37r); Jon.-s v. Hrown, U Ohio St. tiOl; Hacon v. 
Pa^e, 1 Conn. 4(M; I)o<id v. Denny. t> Onu. 157; Cn-^n v. Drebillis, 1 Iowa, 552; 
Stover V. Hamilton, 21 dnitt. 273; Bowman v. .MrCh.-sney, 22 (Initt. iWJ; Whit- 
Iwk V. rnder\v(HKi, 2 H. A C. 157; Aldous v. Cornw.ll, L. K., 3 (^ H. .573; Abbott 
V. DouRlas, 1 C. B. 491; Story on Hill.s, § 'A); Chitty [M511, 174; and runs 
from date: Collier v. C.niy, 1 Tenn. 110. See antt; §§ 40, 44. In (M-ornia held 
te«.nstruinK s»-etion 37(X) of the Civil Code) that a promi.>wor>' note payable 
generally "after date" un«l not otherwise expressinR any time for payment, is 
ptiyabl.' on d-inand. H<jtel Iaviuvt Co. v. Johnson, 103 da. (MM, 30 S. 10. 558; 
Younn V. Ellis, 91 Va. 301, 21 S. Iv 4.S0; Cowan v. llndford Iron Co., H:J Va. 550, 
3 S. K. 120; MeVeinh v. Howard, S7 Va. ri03, 13 S. K. 31 ; < )mohun<lro v. Omohun- 
dro, 21 Gratt. tKH. Where a jury fouml that an anninicnt was uv.ulc for an ex- 
H-nsion of time of payment of the note, that no d.linit.- time wjum !i(ire«><l uf)<)n, but 
that a n-jisonable time for such deUiy was until the phiintitT was .li.ssatisfied with 
the security, until payment was demanded or ofTert^l, the lin<linKH do not make the 
instnmient a demand note in the onlinarv' lepal meaning of the term "payable on 
demand." The jury in efTe<-t found that a rinlit of action di.l not ar.-rue u|)on the 
note until the pay*-*- w:ls di-ssjitisfiol with the .s<-<>urity an<l made an actual demand 
of payment. Lynd..n Sav. Hank v. International Co., 7S Vt. 169, 02 Atl. 50, 112 
Am. St. Rep. 900. Where the laws of the State mak.- the appan-nt maturity of a 
demand note bt^aring inten-st one year after its date, such an ia'itrument is negotia- 
ble. Merchants' Nat. Hank of Santa Monica v. Bentel, 15 Cal. App. 170, 113 

Pac. 70S. 

74. Mcl>'an v. Nichlen, 3 Vict. 107. But evidence will be received to identify 
Buch a note with one described in a mortgane as payable at a time therein siKJcified. 
Stowe V. Merrill, 77 .Me. 5.^0. 

76. U-wis V. Tipton, 10 Ohio (N. S.), 88. See ante, § 44. 

76. Bowman v. McCheaney, 22 Gratt. 609. See arUe, § 44. 


When the word "month" is used in specifying the time of payment, 
a calendar month is understood; and the word "year" signihes a 
calendar year." 

In England, foreign bills are frequently drawn payable at usance 
or usances; and by usance is meant the common period fixed by cus- 
tomary dealing between the country of the drawer and the country 
of the place of payment for the payment of bills."'* 

§ 89. A note payable "when demanded," "^ or "on call," '^ or when 
"called for,"**' or "on demand after date," ^^ is not distinguishable 
from one payable on demand; and payable "on demand at sight," 
is equivalent to payable "at .sight." **^ If payable with interest 
"twelve months after notice," the amount is due whenever demanded 
after notice has been given and twelve months have expired;^' and 
the words "one hundred and eighty days pay to the order t)f" in a 
bill of exchange import that the bill was due 180 days after date, and 
not that tlie money should be ])aid within ISO days;**'* and where the 
expression used is "on demand with interest after four months," 
it is due wiien four months have exjiircd.^" Hut. in such a c-asc, it has 
been held that d(>mand might be made itnnicdi.itcly. but that interest 

77. See chapter XX, on Pr(\sontnu'nt for Payment; and post, § 624. 

78. Story on Bills, § .TO. 

79. Bowman v. McChesney, 22 Gratt. 609; KinRsbury v. Butler, 4 Vt. 4.58. 

80. Luther v. Crawford, 11(> 111. App. 351, affirmed 213 111. .590, 73 N. E. 4.30; 
Bacon v. Bacon, 94 Va. ()87, 27 S. E. .570. 

81. Mobile Sav. Bank v. McDonnell, S3 .\la. 598; Crossmore v. Pape, 73 Cal. 
213; Dixon v. Nuttall, 1 Cromp., M. & R. 307; Boyman v. McChesney, 22 Gratt. 
609. See §§ 599, 1215. 

82. Hull V. Myers, 90 Ga. 074, 10 S. E. 053; citing text; Fenno v. Gay, 146 
Mass. 118; Hitchings v. Edmands, 132 Mass. 338; O'Neill v. Magnor, 81 Cal. 631 ; 
Crim V. Starkweather, 88 N. Y. 339. See § 1215. In Crim v. Starkweather, 88 
N. Y. 340, the words "on demand" were thought to render the note immediately 
due, while "on demand after date" require that some time should elapse before 
demand could be made. In New Jersey the Supreme Court commenting on this 
case said: "The New York case comports more exactly with the terms used, 
but plainly a demand forthwith after the day of the date would be in accordance 
with the contract," i. e., to charge an indorser. Foley v. Emerald Brewing Co., 
61 N. J. L. 430, 39 Atl. 650. 

83. Bowman v. McChesney, 22 Gratt. 609. 

84. Clayton v. Goslmg, 5 B. & C. 360. 

85. Moreland's Adm'r v. Citizens' Sav. Bank, 114 Ky. .577, 71 S. W. 520, 61 
L. R. A. 900, 102 Am. St. Rep. 293. 

86. Hobarts v. Dodge, 1 Fairf. 156. 


would not begin until after the time speeified.^^ And where, upon com- 
promising a suit, a certain sum was paid in cash, and a note was given 
for the balance of the amount compromised on payable "at once," 
the words "at once" were construed to mean within reasonable time.*^ 
Under Negotiable Instrument statute. — Under the statutory defini- 
tion of an instrument payable on demand, and the provisions declaring 
that any terms are sufficient which clearly indicate an intention to 
conform to the requirements of the statute,**^ it has been held that an 
instrument not expressing any time of payment is payable on demand 
though it contain the words "and in the event of my death I hereby 
authorize and direct the payment of the same out of the funds of my 
estate," as such words are surplusage.'-^ 

§ 90. Fourthly. — The place of payment need not be specified in 
the l)ill or note, but very often is. If tlii' ilrawer ilesignate in the bill a 
place of payment, he will be dischargeti, unless it be there presented 
at maturity, as will also an indorser; '•" but as to the maker of a note 
or acceptt)r of a bill payable at a particular i)lace, unless the restric- 
tive words "only and not elsewhcn" br added, no presentment there 
at maturity or afterward is necessary to charge him.^- Where no place 
of payment is expressed in a note, the place of i)ayment is untlerstood 
to be where the maker resides;'-" and if ncnie be expressed in a bill, 
where the drawee resides is understood.^^ 

87. I/oriiin V. f'.urncy, 5 Pick. 1.'); Maasie v. Hoyd (Ala.), Sfj. 145. 

88. Hiv»rs v. C':iriii)l)(ll, .')! Tex. Civ. App. 103, 111 .S. VV. 190. 

89. ApiMiidix, .si'cs. 7, 10. 

90. (;ill).rt V. A<lani.s, 131 N. Y. S. 7S7. 

91. See chu|)ter XX, on Presentment for Payment. 

92. See chapter XX, on Presentment for Payment. A statement of the place 
of payment in a promLsaory note does not affect the liabihty of the maker; there- 
fore, in a suit on a note in which no phice of payment was stipulated, evidence 
that the payee resided in Chici^o, and tliat the contract was to pay the note in 
that city, wjus pro|)erty excluded as immaterial. Ray v. Anderson, 119 Ga. 926, 
47 8. E. 20'). 

93. Story on Notes, § 49; Oxnard v. Varnum, 111 Pa. St. 193; Overland Min- 
ing Co. V. McMaster, 19 Utah, 177, .50 Pac. 977; Christ opherson v. Common 
Council, 117 Mich. 125, 75 X. W. 445, citing text; Bardsley v. Wa.shington Mill 
Co., 54 Wash. 5.03, 103 Pac. 822, 132 Am. St. Rep. 1133, or at the usual place 
of business. Though at the time a note was given the payee resided and has 
contiiuied to reside in another state, the place of payment is in the state where 
the maker residtni, when the debt was contractetl and the note was executed and 
dcliveretl there. Gage v. McSweeney, 74 Vt. 370, 52 Atl. 9(39. 

94. Chitty on Hiils (13th Am. «i.), 1*1511, 174; Story on Bills, §48; Scott v. 
Perlee, 39 Ohio St. 07, citing the text. 


Circumstimces however may control this inference. Thus, if ii hill 
were dniwn upon a merchant abroad, addressed to him "at Paris or 
at London," the place of payment would be deemed the place where 
he accepted it, whether Paris or London.^^ If the drawer direct on the 
face of the bill that it be paid at his own house, it creates a presump- 
tion that it is an accommodation bill; and that he was to pay it; and 
unless he rebut it by showing that he really had effects in the drawee's 
hands, notice of dishonor will be dispensed with.^^ Where a bank is 
named, it will be presumed, in the absence of evidence appearing on 
the face of the note to the contrary, that it was at the maker's home 
town,^^ And the execution of a note, on its face payable at a bank, the 
place for the nain<' of which is left blank, at a town named, authorizes 
the payee, b('ft)rr tiic maturity of tin' note, to insert the name of a 
particular bank, at sucii town, in the blank space, so that, whatever 
limitation of authority may have been imposed i)y the maker on the 
payee, and although, by the law of the State, no note is negotiable un- 
less payabl(> at a specified bank, the note will be negotiable, and 
governed by the law merchant in the hands of a bona jldv indorsee.'-"* 

§ 90a. Place of payment as criterion of negotiability. — In some 
of the Stales of the I nili'd Stales the place of payment is made 
criterion of negotiability.^ Where it is necessary to negotiability 

96. Freese v. Brownell, 35 N. J. L. 285; Cox v. National Bank, 100 U. S. 
(10 Otto) 713; Story on Hills, § 4«». In Indiana, under 1 Rrv. Stat. 1870, p. 636, 
§ 6, notes to be governed Ijy th(> law merchant niUHt show on their face that they 
are payable at or in a bank. Cros^san v. May, »>S Ind. 2t2. If payable "at In- 
diana Banking Company," it has been held that such expression is not equivalent 
to being payable at or in a bank. Rominger v. Keyes, 73 Ind. 376. So held also 
where the note was made "payable at the bank in Attica," though there was but 
one bank there. Hardy v. O'Brien, 91 Ind. 94; Butterfield v. Davenport, 84 Ind. 

96. Sharp v. Bailey, 9 B. & C. 44. 

97. Bailey v. Birkhofer, 123 Iowa, 59, 98 N. W. 594. Where the maker promised 
to pay the sum nanuxl at "the First National Bank," and no other designation 
of the place of payment appeared upon the instrument, except a printed memoran- 
dum on the margin reading, "Corner Main Street and First Ave." these words 
were no part of the note. Bailey v. Birkhofer, 123 la. 59, 98 N. W. 594. 

98. Gillaspie v. Kelly, 41 Ind. 158; Spitler v. James, 32 Ind. 203. See post, 

99. For cases applying such statutes, see Oates v. National Bank, 100 U. S. 
239 (Alabama statute); Gwathmay v. Clisby, 31 Fed. 220; Walston v. Davis, 
146 Ala. 510, 40 So. 1017; Ray v. Baker, 165 Ind. 74, 74 N. E. 619; Adams & 
Westlake Co. v. Robinson (Ky.), 76 S. W. 510; Barger v. Farnham, 130 Misc. 
487, 90 N. W. 281. It has been held in Georgia that a note payable at "H. & J.," 


that the note be payable at a bank in the State, and a note is made in 
the State, payable at a bank, it will be presumed that the bank is in 
the State. 1 

Under Negotiable Instrument statute. — It has been held that the 
Negotiable Instrument statute repealed a statute providing that a 
promissory note payable at a bank is put upon the footing of a bill of 
exchange when discounted by the bank.^ 

does not upon its face show that it was made for the purpose of negotiation at a 
chartered bunk; and that the fact that suit thereon Ls brought against the indorscrs 
by n. & J., and who are describeil in the {jleatlings ua lately bankers doing business 
under the name, styh-, and fimi of II. & J., is not sufficient to prove that H. & J. 
is a chartennl bank. Salmons v. Iloyt, o3 Oa. 493. In Freeman's Bank v. Ruck- 
man, Hi (Jratt. 12<), the note 8ue<l on was executed in Boston, Mass., and was 
payable "at either of the banking hous<'S in Wheeling, V'a." Judge Moncure 
said: "The note was not payable at a particular bank, or at a particular office 
thereof, etc. (following the statute), but 'at either of the banking houses in Wheel- 
ing Va.,' and therefore is not a negotiable note." It is not necessary in Virginia 
that the note, in onler to be negotiable, be expressly payable in that State: "It 
is certainly true that such note, etc., miLst on its face be payable in this State, 
bwaii.s<- the .si-ctinn so re<]uires. Hut it does not require that the State shall be 
exjiressly namnl in the note." McVeigh v. Bank of the Old Dominion, 20 CJratt. 
&«), Moncure, V. Si-e Broun v. Hull, '.Hi Gratt. 31, in which case the bank ceased 
to exist after the note was made; an<l the court, considering the eflfect of this fact 
on an indorsement after maturity, heUI that the indorsement amounte<J to a 
mere assignment, and was not negotiable. If the note ha<l be<'n transf(rre<l be- 
fon> maturity, the princijjlt-of the decision would have led to a like ruling, the court 
bi'ing of opinion that as the indonw-mcnt could not Iw payable at tli«; bank, il 
coulil not be such in the sense of the law merchant. The c;ls«' is a very peculiar 
one, and the dccL-^ioii questionable. The negotiable character of the j)aper having 
been fixed in its inception, query, if that character could be changed by subse- 
quent events? To place a note upon the fofjting of a bill of exchange under the 
Kentucky statute, it must be not only payable and negotiable at an incorporated 
bank, but indorsetl to, and dLscountc<l by, the bank at which it is |)ayable or by 
mmv other incor|)orati>d bank. Magoffin v. Boyle Xat. Bank (Ky.), 09 S. W. 
702; Nickell v. Citizens' Bank (Ky.), 00 S. W. 92.'j; Jones v. Worj<J, 10 Ky. (3 
A. K. Marsh.) lt)2. Under a statute providing that a note payable in a bank 
shall be neg(»tiable, a note payable "at" a certain bank is within the statute. 
Halstead v. WchkIs (Ind. App.), 95 N. E. 429. Where false and fraudulent rep- 
ri'sentations with respect to the consideration of a note are set up in an action 
on the note, where the note was not made payable at a bank in the State and had 
been assigned to a nonresident, the same reme<Jy may be hatl against the assignee 
that might be had against the payee. Reed v. The Tioga Mfg. Co., 66 
Ind. 21. 

1. McGuirk v. Cummings, 54 Ind. 246. See McVeigh v. Bank of Old Dominion, 
26 Gratt. S30, and sxqira. 

2. Williams v. Paintsville Nat. Bank, 137 S. W. 535, 143 Ky. 781, as to 
Kentucky Statutes, § 483. 


§ 90b. Power of government to change place of payment. —When 

the place ol" payineiil is >i)eeititil in a l»ill or note, or iiegotialjle Injnd 
it is a part of the contract, and after its execution a State is without 
power to chanjj;e tlie place of payment, under the provision of the 
United States Constitution prohibiting tlu- States from passing any 
law "impairing the obligation of contracts." ^ 

§ 91. Fifthly, as to the name of the drawer or maker. — It is of 
the first importance, indeed indispi^nsahle, that th<> hill or note should 
point out vvitli certainty the party who enters into the contract im- 
ported by its terms,' and if the promise be in the alternative, it is not a 
good negotiable instrument. Thus, where the note ran, "I, A. B., 
promise to pay," and was signetl " A. H. or else ( '. I).," the court said: 
"This is not a i)r()missory note against this defendant, within the 
statute of Anne. It operates differently as to the two parties. It is 
tiie absolute undertaking on the part of Corner (A.) to pay, and it is 
conditional only on the part of the defendant (B.), who undertakes 
to pay only in the event of Corner's not i)aying." '' But it has been 
said that such an instrument would be a good note as against A.° 

§ 92. The name of the drawer is absolutely needful upon the 
face of the bill; for without it the drawee cannot tell whether he 
should accept it or not, or any holder know to whom notice should 
be given. Indeed, it is i)arado\ical tosp<>ak of a bill without a drawer; 
for the xvvy teiin iaqjorts a negotiable order drawn by some one.^ 
And even when such an instrument bears the name of one upon it who 
signs as acceptor, it is still nothing more than an inchoate i)aper, which 

3. Dillingham v. Hook, 32 Kan. 185, 4 Pac. 166. 

4. Homan v. Francisco, 12 Mo. App. 560. In this case the note began, "One 
(lay after date, wr, jointly and severally ... as principal, and John Francesco, 
J. B. Walsh (and otherti) a.s security . . . promise to pay, etc." It was signed by 
the parties described as sureties, but the name of the maker was omitted. It \va.s 
held that the name of the maker could not be supplied by parol evidence, and that 
there being no primary obligation, the parties signing as sureties were not bound. 
In Aultman & Taylor Co. v. Gunderson, 6 S. Dak. 226, 60 N. W. 859, 55 Am. St. 
Rep. 837, it is held that where a note is signed by one party in the lower right- 
hand corner and by another in the lower left-hand corner, evidence is admissible 
to show that the former was the maker, and the latter a witness. 

5. Ferris v. Bond, 4 B. ct Aid. 679; Story on Notes, § 34; 1 Parsons on Notes 
ami Bills, 36-37; Chitty [*1401, 162. 

6. Byles (Sharswood's ed.) [*92], 190. See Edwards on Bills, 134. This seems 
to be there implied by the author's language. 

7. Story on Bills, § 53; Benjamin's Chalmers' Digest, 4. 


cannot bo sued upon unless a drawer's name is authoritativel}' in- 
serted in it." And it has been well said that it is "an abuse of terms 
to say that one was the acceptor of a bill which had never been drawn ; 
or, in other words, that he had accepted an 'order,' or 'request,' that 
had never been made upon him." * But authority to insert the name of 
a drawer to such an inchoate paper would be prima facie presumed ; '° 

8. Tevifl V. YounR, 1 Mete. (Ky.) 199; May v. Miller, 27 Ala. 515; Byles 
on HilLs (Shurwwood'8 t«d.) ['HS], 17S. In MeC'iill v. Tiiylor, 10 C. B. (N. S.) 
30, 34 L. J. 305, C I'. Lrie, C. J., said: "The in.strunient haa no date and no 
drawer's name, but the defendant wrote hi.s aeeeptanee aeross it, and the question 
i.H, hari the holder of .such an instrument the rinht to dei-hire on it, either jis a bill 
of exehanne or pr<jmis.s<»ry note? It certainly is ncjt a bill of exchange, nor is it 
a promi.H.s<»ry nute. It w, in fart, only an inchoate instrumc-nt, thounh ca|)able 
of bfinj; c<)iii|)lrte<i." Aeeordinf?, t**"*' StiM-ssin'T v. S. K. R. V<j., 3 Kl. A Bl. 
511), •J3 L. J. (2. M. 293; KeRina v. llariHr, 7 (I !V 1). TS; Cent. L. J., 1S81, 
I). 171. 

9. Tevifl V. YounK, 1 Mctr. (Ky.) 199. In this rafle the instrument sued on 
w:is in the form of a bill, but no name was siRne*! as drawer. It wius dat^nl Shelbv- 
ville, and adiirestwd "To W. (I. Rogers, Slidbyville;" aeei'pt«'<l by Rogers, and 
iniii>rs«tl "John TevLs." Suit wils brought by Vouiig against Tevis lus indorH-r, and 
Rogers as acceptor; but it wius held that the instrument Wiis incomplete, and the 
action «"ould not Iw maintaine*!. It wits sjiid by th«' c«)urt, [mt I )uval, J. (Simpson, 
J., di.Hs«'f>ting): "The fjilhicy of nil the ri-a.soning of eoun.s«-| u|x»n this |M)int, con- 
sists in th«'ir failure to re<'ogniw the distinction l)etwiH'n a bill of exchange and the 
men* form of such an in.strument. 'I'he words written U|K»n the fare of the |)aper 
in i|uestion jire utterly ino|x'rative, and without force or legal efTeet for any pur- 
|K»S4' lis a commercial instrument, without the name of n drawer, either subs«'ribed 
to the pajM-r, or iiusj-rti-^l in the ImmIv of it. Whether the name of the drawer, 
or of any subs^Hjuent party to the bill, be forge*! or fictitious makes no difTerence 
as it n-siH-cts the liability of the indonv-r. The indors«-ment im|>lies an undertaking 
that the antec»'<lent parties are comi»etent to draw and accept the bill, and that 
their signatun-s an* geiuiine. But the indorwment tlo*-?* not imply an undertaking 
that the pa|M>r inilors«t| contains the nam<-s of all the ant^-cedent parties neces.sary 
to con.stitute a valid bill of exchange, when the fac«' of the pa|X'r ifs«'lf shows that 
it is blank as to all or any of such names. The indors4-ment of the pajwr would, 
doubth-ss, confer upon th*- party«>d with it, authority to fill up the blanks 
with the nanjes of any parties, at the di.scretion of the latter; and .so, the inrlorse- 
mcnt of a piece of blank pajK-r would give the holder authority to make a bill of 
exchange, uixjn which the indorser would be liable, in the hands of an innocent 
holder for value, for whatever amount or in the names of whatever parties the 
bill might \h' sub.'W'tiuently drawn and accept(«d. But certainly it cannot be suf)- 
|H)S<'<1 that in either of the cjls^-s stat«>d, the indors«'r could l)<> hel<| liable, as such, 
until the paper should have l>een drawn and exe<-ut«Hl and comi)lete<l as a bill of 
exchange. It is not the nu-re authority to make a bill, which of itself creates the 
liability, but it Ls the execution of that authority." 

10. ilarvey v. Cane, 3-1 L. T. R. 04 (1H70). See jxyst, §§ 142, 147, 843, 844; 
Scard v. Jackaon, 34 L. T. R. 65, note a; Moies v. Knapp, 30 Ga. 942; Ben- 


and if inserted without authority, the acceptor would be bound to 
a bonajide holder without notice.^' 

§ 93. Maker estopped to deny capacity of payee. — By executing 
a promissory note, the maker engager to pay the amount therein 
named to the bearer, if it be payable to bearer; to the payee or order, 
if it be payable to a particular jMTson or ord<'r. By the very act of 
engaging to pay to a particular payee he acknowledges his capacity 
to receive the money; and also his capacity to order it to be paid to 
another.^^ And therefore if the maker is sued by an indorsee of the 
payee, lie cannot defend himself on the ground that the payee had no 
capacity to take or to indorse it by reason of being an infant,'^ a 
married woman/^ a bankrupt,'" a fictitious person,'® a corporation 
without legal existence or capacity to indorse; " or that such payee 
wiis insane at the time the note was executed; '* though, if the payee 
became insane after the execution of the note, his indors(>ment would 
then be a mere nullity, and if the acceptor knew of such insanity he 
would not be justified in making payment to any one whose title was 
affected by it.'^ There are authorities which hold that the insanity 

jamin's Chulmors' Digest, 35, 46; In re Duffy, 5 L. II., Ireland, 927; Hopps v. 
Savage, 09 Md. 51(). 

11. See these questions discussed, post, §§ 131, 132, 142, 147, 843, 844. The 
Scotch law accords. Smith v. Taylor, Ct. of Seas., Feb. 27, 1824 ; Ames on Bills and 
Notes, vol. I, p. 884. And so also the Irish law. In re Duffy, 5 L. II., Ireland, 92. 

12. Wolke V. Kuhno, 109 Ind. 313; I^-wi.sohn v. Kent & Stanley Co., 87 Ilun, 
257, 33 N. Y. Supp. 820, citing and approving the text ; Mayer v. Old, 57 Mo. App. 
039, text cited. 

13. Frazier v. Massey, 14 Ind. 382; Taylor v. Croker, 4 Esp. 187; Jones v. 
Darch, 4 Price, 300; Grey v. Cooper, 3 Doug. 05. See, post, § 227. 

14. Smith v. Marsack, C. B. 480, Wilde, C. J.; Binney v. Globe Nat. Bank, 
150 Mass. 574, 6 L. II. A. 381; Castor v. Peterson, 2 Wash. 204, 26 Pac. 223, 26 
Am. St. Rep. 854, citing te.xt. See post, § 242. 

15. Drayton v. Dale, 2 B. & C. 293. 

16. Lane v. Krekle, 22 Iowa, 404. See §§ 136, 139. 

17. Winer v. Bank of Blytheville, 89 Ark. 435, 117 S. W. 232, 131 Am. St. Rep. 
102; Brickley v. Edwards, 131 Ind. 3, 30 N. E. 708; Ray v. Indianapolis Ins. Co., 
39 Ind. 290; Vater v. Lewis, 36 Ind. 291; Snyder v. Studebaker, 19 Ind. 402; 
John V. Farmers' Bank, 2 Blackf. 307; Greiner v. Ulery, 20 Iowa, 200; Massey 
v. Building Assn., 22 Kan. 034; Stoutimore v. Clark, 70 Mo. 477; National Ins. 
Co. v. BowTnan, 00 Mo. 252; Farmers' & M. Bank v. Needles, 52 Mo. 17; Blevins 
V. Fairley, 71 Mo. App. 259; Ehrmen v. Union Cent. Life Ins. Co., 35 Ohio. St. 

18. See Smith v. Marsack, supra. 

19. See Bigelow on Estoppel, 450, 541; Alcock v. Alcock, 3 M. & G. 208 (42 
Eng. C. L.). The fact of lunacy came to defendant's knowledge pending the trial. 


of the payee at the time the paper was executed may be shown; ^ 
but they have been sharply criticised,-' and do not accord with the 
general principle of estoppel applied to negotiable paper. He is also 
estopped from showing that the payee was not the real party in in- 
terest at the time the note was executed.-^ 

§ 94. Joint and several notes. — A note by two or more makers 
may be eitiier joint, or j(jint and several. A note signed by more 
than one person, and beginning "we promise," is joint only.-^ A 
joint and several note usually expresses that the makers jointly and 
severally promise.-^ But a note signed by more than one person, and 

20. PcHPlof- V. Rohl)in.s, 3 Mete. (Mmw.) 164. 

21. HIkcIow on Kstopprl, 4r»(), 4.')1. 

22. John.son v. Conklin, 119 Ind. 109; Hluckor v. Dunbar, 108 Ind. 217. 

23. Thompson on Hilla, 1.50; Union Nat. Hank v. N'cill, 149 Fed. 711, 10 L. H. A. 
(N. S.) 420; Hartlctt Estate Co. v. Fraser, 11 Cal. App. 37.3, 105 Pac. 130; Barrett 
V. Funay, 3.S Ind. H(\; Sharpo v. Baker (Ind. A\^\y.), 99 N. E. 44; Taylor v. Hckct, 
IS Ind. App. 40(», 4S N. E. 202, 03 Am. St. Rep. 3.')2; Dusenhury v. Albright, 
31 Nebr. 34.'), 47 N. \V. 10-17. But in Michigan a note pommencing "we promise 
to i)ay" with the further provi-sion "t<j be paid by u.h in pro|M)rtion to road tax 
in ubove-mentione<l di.striet.s on hind.s" wiw held to ereate a .sejiarate and not a 
joint liability. Wentern Wheel ScrajxT Co. v. Locklin, 100 Mich. .339, M N. W. 
1117. If, in an action on a joint note, it appears that one of the persons whose 
names appears thereon did not Ki^n it, there can be a recovery a^^ainst the other, 
dray v. Gray (Del. SujK-r.), .SO .\ti. 2.33. Though a note in in form a joint ami 
.>*cveral liability, it may be shown that the parties intended to be bound only for 
their sj-veral liability, and this i.s .shown by a contract foniiinK part of the same 
tran.sjiction that lach .shouM Ix- liable each for only his |)roper .share. City Deposit 
Bank Co. of Columbus, Ohio, v. Creen, 1.30 la. :i.S4, 103 X. W. 90. But see Rum- 
.sey V. Fox, LW Mich. 348, 122 N. W. 526, holding that where several persons 
signed a subscription paper aRrecinR to pve their joint and several obligations 
fur the projx'rty purchased, and sub.secjuently delivered joint and several notes in 
I)ayment for the prop<'rty, their obligation is joint and .several notwith.standing 
the subscrii)tion reciteil that each sub.scriber took the amount of stock .set o|)i) 
his name, and a certifi«'ate way signe*! by the vendor and delivere<J to each reciting 
his share in the {)n)iM'rty. \N'heri' a j(jint note hafl been given by two persons for 
the purch.'Lse of property which turns out to be u.sele8s, a by one of the 
makers after knowing its condition to pay the note is not binding upon the other. 
Ilayman v. Lambden, 97 Md. 33, 54 Atl. 962. Under a statute providing that a 
promis8or>' note signwi by two, through j(jint in form, is joint and several, when 
.such a note has been declared on jointly and also on common counts, recovery 
may be had against one only when service has been quashed as to the other. 
Harrison v. Thackaberry. 94 N. E. 172, 248 111. 512. 

24. It b the same as though the parties to it ha<J executed a joint obligation and 
each of the parties had executed a separate obligation. Sharpe v. Baker (Ind. 
App.), 99 N. E. 44. Under a statute providing that "where all the parties that 


boginniiiK "I promise," is several as well as joint; ^^ and so also is one 
signed by two makers, and running "we or either of us promise t(» 
pay." -® And where two have signed a joint note, "payable to the 
order of myself," it means payable to the order of either, and the in- 
dorsement of either carries a good title.-"^ If a note running "we 
promise" is signed by but one person, he is bound just lus if the lan- 
guage were " I promise." "^ Where two sign the note as makers, they 
will be regarded prima facie as joint makers, and not as partners.-"^ 

unite in a promise receive some benefit from the consideration, whether pjust or 
present, their jjromise is pn'sumetl to be joint and s<n'enil," where it appears that 
the |)arties received some benefit from the consideration, and nothing further is 
shown from which their intention can be luscertaincnl, the hiw stei)s in and makes 
the i)roinise joint and several, but where it clearly apjM'ars that such wjus not the 
intention of the |)arties, and it clearly iipjM'ars, on the contrary, that the intention 
was that the promise should be joint, the presumption is overcome, and the 
promise must be cnforciMl aecordinK to its express terms. Fanners' Kxch. Hank 
V. Morse, 129 Cal. 239, til Pac. UXSK. 

26. Salomon v. Hopkins, til Conn. 49, 23 Atl. 710; Monson v. Drakely, 40 Conn. 
5r)2; Rooth v. HufT, lltJ ('.a. M, 42 S. K. .ISl, 9-1 Am. St. Hep. 9S; Miller v. Lewi.s- 
ton Nat. Hank, IS Idaho, 124, lOS Pac. 9()1; Maiden v. VVeb.ster, ;H) Ind. :n7; 
Corneille v. PfeilTer, 2t) Ind. App. t)2, r>\) N. K. 1S.S; Ilcnunenw.iy v. Stone, 7 Ma.Hs. 
.W; Dow Law Hank v. Codfny. 12t) Mich. .')21. S", N. W. 107'., SC. Am. St. Rep. 
.•S.W; Ely V. Clute, 19 Hun, 3"); Partridge v. Colby, 19 Harb. 2IS; L.ane v. Salter, 
4 Rob. (N. Y.) 2:39; Harn>tt v. Skinner, 2 Hailey, SS; Arbuckle v. Templeton, t»r» 
Vt. 207, 2r) All. 109r); Dill v. White, r)2 Wis. 109; H<»lman v. (lilliam, (i Rand. 39; 
Marsh v. Ward, Peake, 130; Lmid v. Haker, G Fost. 70; Galway v. Mathew, 
1 Campb. 4(i2. 

26. Po^ue v. CMark, 25 III. 335; Harvey v. Irvine, 11 Iowa, S2; First Nat. Hank 
V. Fowler, 30 Ohio St. r)24. And when the note w;us given for the purchase of 
property by the signers, a recital of the proportions paid and to be paid of the 
purchase price of the property by the purchasers thereof should be construcnl aa 
intended as between themselves to evidence their respective interests in it. Dolin- 
Bki V. First Nat. Hank of Pittsburg, (Tex. Civ. App.), 122 S. W. 270 (1909). 

27. First Nat. Bank v. F'owler, 30 Ohio St. 524. In Jenkins v. Bass (Ky.), 11 
S. W. 293, parol evidence was admitted to show which of the two was intended 
as payee. 

28. Whitmore v. Nickerson, 125 Mass. 496; Rice v. Gove, 22 Pick. 158; Holmes 
V. Sinclair, 19 111. 71. 

29. Ellinger's Appeal, 114 Pa. St. 505, § 361, post. A joint and several note 
not negotiable binds makers proportionately. Groves v. Sentell, 153 U. S. 465, 
14 Sup. Ct. Rep. 898. Where one, for a valuable consideration, signs his name 
to a joint and several promissory note after it has been signed and delivered, he 
becomes, as between himself and the payee, a maker, and may be sued as such. 
He entered into a new contract with the holder of the note on a new and additional 
consideration. First Nat. Hank v. Cecil, 23 Oreg. .58, 31 Pac. 01, 32 Pac. 393; 
Palmer v. Field, 70 Hun, 229, 27 N. Y. Supp. 730. 


If a note bo signed l)y a person in the name of a firm, whether that 
name represents in form more than one person, as "A. & Co.," or only 
one person, as " A.," it is in both cases the note of the firm, and all the 
partners will be bound, whether the language be "I" or "We" prom- 
ise.^ If the note runs " We promise," and is signed " A. B., principal; 
C. D., surety," it is still the joint note of both; and if it were written 
"I promise," and signed in the same manner, it would be the joint 
and several note of both."'' A joint and several note, though on one 
piece of paper, comprises in reality and in legal effect, several notes.'^ 
Thus, if A. B. & C. make a joint and several note, there is a several 
note of each, and the joint note of all — in all, four notcs.^^ The joint 
note may be valid, though the several notes are void.^^ 

Under Negotiable Instniment statute. — The statute declares that 
"where an instrument containing the words, 'I promise to pay,' is 
signed by two or more persoiLs, they are deemed to be jointly and 
.severally liable thcn^jn." " 

§ 95. Two or more drawers. — The drawer of a bill is gener- 
ally a single person, or a copartnership firm, or a corporation. Hut 
two or more p«TS(ms may unit*- in drawing a bill,^ and unless they are 
partners, each is cntitN-d t<j reijuire demand and notice.*^" And they 
may make the bill payable to their joint order, or to the order of 
either of thrm, or to a third person or order. Sometimes another 
person unit«'S with the drawer lus a surety, and such person is called a 
"surety drawer." Where several persons unite in drawing a l)ill of 
exchange upon a person in whose hands they have no funds, and the 

30. S:il(.m<)n v. Hopkin.-*, (H Omn. 47, 2.'} All. 71(5; IIih-s v. AhlM)tt, Cowp. 832. 

31. Hunt V. A(ljiin.H, T) Miuw. 3.'>.S; I'lilmcr v. Grant, 4 Conn. :iS9; Luthiun v. 
Flour Mills, 68 Tex. 130, citing the t««xt; Salomon v. Hopkina, (51 Conn. 47, 23 
Atl. 7U\. 

32. Klctrhcr v. Dytc, 2 T. K. fi; Hylf-s, 7S. The fact that tho word sunfy is 
written aft or the nuiiu' of one of two nixners of a i)n)mLs.>v»ry note «1o<'h not render 
thorn any the less joint and wvenil ohlip»rs, so far as their liahility to the plaintiff 
\» conecrne<l. Calloway v. Hartholoniew, 44 Or. 7.5, 74 Pac. 467; See also Booth 
V. Huff, 1 10 Ca. S, 42 S. E. 3S1, 9-1 Am. St. Hep. 98. 

33. KinK v. Houre, 13 M. & W. 56.5. 

34. McClae v. Sutherland, 3 El. & Bl. 1 (77 Eng. C. L.); Byles (Sharswood's 
ed.) CS], 79. 

36. Appendix, sec. 17 (7). See also Ullen,- v. Brohm, 20 Colo. App. 389, 79 
Pac. ISO, hoKliuR that one could not be eharged as guarantor for the other. 

36. Suydam v. Westfall, 4 Hill, 211, 2 Den. 205; McMean v. Little, 3 Baxt. 

37. v. Little, 3 Baxt. 332. 



bill is accepted and paid, all of them are hound to the acceptor, antl 
neither one of them can show that he signed as surety for the others, 
and that the drawee knew the fact when he accepted the hill,^ The 
doctrine has been carried farther, and it ha.s been held that if A. & B. 
draw on C. without having funds in his hantls, and B. signs himself 
surety, both must be consideri'd as drawers to all the parties to the 
bill, as well to the acceptor as the payee, for the acceptor may have 
been induced to accept the bill quite as much as the payee or other 
holder to take it, because B., as surety of A., was liable to him for 
payment in the character of joint drawers.^" 

In New York a different view is taken, on the ground that the liabil- 
ity of a joint drawer extends to the payee or subsecjuent holder aloiu', 
and even if he draws the i)ill, with the understanding that he is to be 
liable to the aceeptor, such a contract would be a parol j)roniise to 
pay the debt of another, and void under the statute of frauds. '° But 
this view does not seem to us tenable."*^ 

§ 95a. In an English case, M. anil P, drew a bill payable to their 
own order on R. B., who accepted it, and J. B. indorsed it with the 
view of becoming surety for R. B. to the drawer. Action was brought 
against J. B. as an indorser, and also as a drawer. He was held bcnmd 
in the latter character. Shee, J., said : " It is alleged that the defendant 
'indorsed,' which as a stranger he could not do. But the defc^ndant 
here may be treated as drawer: that is, as guaranteeing the payment 
of the bill by the acceptor." "'^ 

§ 96. Sixthly: as to the drawee. — A bill of exchange being an 
open letter of request from the drawer to a third person, supposed 
to be under obligation to accept the bill, should be regularly addressed 
to such person by his christian name and surname, and also by a 
designation of his place of residence; and if it is addressed to a firm, 
the name of the firm should be expressed in the address. ^^ 

38. Suydam v. Westfiill, 4 Hill, 211, 2 Den. 205; Oyler v. McMurray, 7 Ind. 
App. 645, 34 N. E. 1004. 

39. Swillcy v. Lyon, 18 Ala. 558; Story on Bills, § 420; Church v. Swope, 38 
Ohio St. 495, citing the text. 

40. Griffith v. Reed, 21 Wend. 502; Wing v. Terry, 5 Hill, 160. 

41. Story on Bills, § 420; Edwards on Bills, § 376. 

42. Mathews v. Bloxsome, Q. B., 33 L. J. R. 209. See Penny v. Innes, 1 Cromp. 
M. & R. 439. 

43. Byles (Sharswood'a ed.) [*84], 179; Chitty on Bills (13th Am. ed.) [*164l, 
188; Story on Bills, § 58. 


Such at least is requisite to perfect the bill in a proper and business- 
like manner; and without such accuracy in the address, it does not 
appear who should bo called upon to accept or pay it, or who would 
be justified in so doing. In an early English case it was held that it 
was not necessary that the bill should have a drawee; '*^ but that case 
has been tlistinctly repudiated, and both in England and in the United 
States it is settled doctrine that a drawee must Ik; pointed out.''^ 
Where a bill without a drawee was sued upon, it was well said: "For 
want of a drawin- it is inccjmplete as a bill of exchange; and for want 
of a promise it appears to us incomplete as a note." ^^ But the bona 
fide holder of a check without a drawee, which has been issued as a 
memorandum of indebtedness, may recover on account for money had 
and received." 

§ 97. Where a bill was dra\\'n payable to the drawer's order, anil 
there was adiletl " Payable at No. 1 Wilmot Street, opposite the Lamb, 
Bethnal Green, I^ondon," and was accepted by one Milner, it was 
held sufficient, upon the ground that it must be considered as directed 

44. K.-Kina v. H:iwk»-s, 2 M«j<j. C. C. «J<). 

45. la IVto V. HrynoKls, 9 Kxch. 410, .MdcrHon, H., mid: "With respect to the 
question whether thLs instrument in or is not a bill of exchanRe, the ca«e of Ilegina 
V. Hawkes ia un(loul)t<«<lly in point. I must own, however, that I now think I 
wa.s wnjnK on that occasion. The caao soenw to have been (l<K'idetl on the ground 
that Milner v. CJray, 8 Taunt. 739, Koverni"*! it; ami the fact wius not adverted 
to, that (iray v. MiUier may be thiw explaincti; that a bill of exchange made pay- 
able at a particular place or hcju.s4', in meant tcj be iuldre>we<l to the perwjn who 
resid»^ at that place or house. Therefore, in that cast', the bill wjis, on the face 
of it, directed to some one; and the court held, that, inasmuch as the defendant 
promise*! to pay it, that was conclusive evidence that he was the party to whom 
it was mldressetl. But in the case of Regina v. Hawkes, the